Black holes at absolute zero

Hello Guest,

You wrote: 'If the big bang was composed of an ultra-dense singularity, then when it expanded, it should have absorbed a lot of energy from the surrounding "space-time" or whatever it was called before the "big bang".'

The Big Bang did not occur inside space-time, as if one were speaking of a smaller object expanding inside a larger volume. The Big Bang encompassed all of space-time. All of it. There was no "surrounding" anything from which to 'absorb energy.'

Nor was there a 'whatever-it-was-called' before the Big Bang because there was no before. Space and time began at the Big Bang and space-time and the Big Bang were one and the same thing.

Cheers!

-e

What you say may be true,and accepted by men of great wisdom, but what if they err?Try calculations from the perspective of an expanding bubble and see if your mental horizons expand (pardon the pun).

An nescis, mi fili, quantilla sapientia mundus regatur

Non est ad astra mollis e terris

Id legi modo hic modo illic. vero, latine loqui non est difficilissimum

<sigh>

Does not a bubble create it's own space as it expands?And what is time but merely a dimension of space? So a bubble could create it's own space-time.

It is very hard for man's ego to accept an image of our universe as merely the leavening in some giant's loaf of bread,or bubbles rising in a huge keg of beer, or perhaps flatulance in a giant bathtub.And all of our elegant mathematics and profound theories are all for naught.

And in the end, that is how it is.We cannot take our knowedge beyond the veil.The worms do not care if they consume the entire contents of an encylopedia within someone's brain, and elegant theories all taste the same as the blubberings of an idiot.Whether the universe continues to expand forever,or collapses back into a singularity will have little meaning to us, but it is in man's nature to wonder, to imagine,to explore new ideas, but we should not let dreams be a substitute for living the here and the now, for that is all we really have.

"Eat, Drink, and be merry,

For tomorrow we may die"

A toast to the present! CHEERS!

Hi europium.

If that is the case as you describe it, then where does all "matter/energy" come from?

Also, you said that there was "nothing" before the big bang, there must have been something or there wouldn't have been a big bang?

After all, it is only a theory!!!

Spencer.

Hi europium,

"The Big Bang did not occur inside space-time..."

There are theories that miniature universes are being created inside OUR universe all the time. If so, they make their OWN space-time. It is possible that our universe was created inside a larger one. Maybe you can visualize 10 or 11 dimensions, but nobody else can, so you cannot positively say that there is nothing outside of the universe.

S

When you wrote:

Space and time began at the Big Bang and space-time and the Big Bang were one and the same thing.

you missed the point by smaller than an attometer.

If what we do on NOU - Nature of the Universe does get to "surrounding" the just following attoseconds later, the Big Bang - then we have succeeded in providing the starting conditions our scientists are looking for: "What were the conditions before the Big Bang? "Was it a priorly created Universe that has just collapsed" Or "What information was contained in the smaller than a cubic attometer? Was it a collapsed Black Hole containing all the information of what the next Universe would like? How it will behave? What ever information Stephen Hawking and others believe is "forever" lost shoud be here to form the Universe that we know because we are living in that-to-be this Universe.

soaralone1

Suppose there never was a super-dense singularity that led to the Big Bang, and instead, it was a rebound from the collapse of a previous Universe. (What could happen to an ultra-massive singularity that would cause it to suddendy fragment and explode?). As the gravitational energy of the collapsing Universe grew to near infinite values, all the other forces, except gravity, would have disappeared until finally there was an ultra-dense soup of matter and energy. As soon as this ultra-dense soup got to the point where gravity de-coupled or degenerated, the ultra-dense soup erupted in an event that we call the Big Bang, and gravity did not separate out until after the "ultra-expansion" phase, where matter was free to exceed the speed of light for a short period, and when gravity fell out during this expansion phase as a special force, slowing and controling expansion and setting the Universe on it's current rate of expansion, possibly with some minor changes. If matter falling into a black hole were "returning" to the Universe, possibly as a "white hole" somewhere else, why does the black hole still contain its prodigious mass? Not to be argumentative, just another ay of looking at things.

The annihilation of matter and anti-matter with the k-meson in matter leaving the universe we know!

Ah yes ... finite homo sapiens pondering the infinite - anyone ever read Heinlein's "Last Question" ?

Nope | Whut wuz it ?

Back to the bubble for just a moment.

Imagine two ballons tethered at the same distance below the water.They have exactly the same volume of air.Allow one ballon to rise until the volume has exactly doubled.The matter density in this balloon is now 1/2 the previous density at the lower level.Total energy, however, is the same.

Now inflate the second ballon to exactly double it's volume, but do not allow it to rise any higher.The matter density is now doubled from the previous density.The total energy also has doubled.

According to what I have read, as best I can understand it, the universe is expanding, and matter density is decreasing, while total energy is staying constant.

To me this implies that the expansive force is not coming from within, but from outside our universe.Whatever resistance the universe is expanding against is decreasing, causing the universe to expand.Therefore in my humble opinion, a bubble is a better model for our universe than a big bang. Negative gravity is not required to explain the expansion of a bubble, nor is a cosmological constant.

There are those that claim there is no "outside" or boundary to our universe, but IMHO, this is a cop out to avoid having to deal with the finiteness of our universe.

Certainly, we cannot detect a boundary, but that does not mean it does not exist.We can, however detect the effect of a boundary.If you pierce one of the balloons previously decribed, there will be an immediate expansion and dissipation of all the matter within, not a slowly increasing rate of expansion, as we see in our universe.

It behaves like a bubble of gas rising in a liquid, or some denser medium.

Perhaps there is a area of "denser" space time surrounding our universe.

Dark matter cannot be seen, but it's effects can be observed.90 percent of the universe is invisible,so how certain can we be that what we see is truly representative of the universe as a whole?

We truly see the universe "thru a glass darkly".

HTRN

There are theories and theories -- But suppose there could be other non-theoretical explanations for what we all - lay persons and well-degreed persons - should very seriously consider. There may well be an explanation for the apparent expansion of the Universe. Also, a possible reason for the apparent acceleration. And a description of Black Holes that includes pressure, temperature, and mass density.

Hi Guest,

I appreciate your thoughts. Why do you think there is a singularity in the center of a black hole? I think it is very unlikely. A singularity isn't just ultra-dense, it is infinitely dense. There is no proof that a singularity has ever existed. If there were, why would it be at absolute zero? As far as cooling and expansion, see my threads "State of the Big Bang Theory part ..." :

"The cooling caused by the expansion is understood by using conventional thermal physics. The cooling robs the particles of most of their energy, transferring that energy to the gravitational field."

Regards,

S

Hi StandardsGuy.

I have read all of these posts and still I do not believe that a black Hole as we know it exists! In fact, I do not believe most of these theories because, THEY are only THEORIES after all?

No living or dead person has ever proved right or wrong on these questions, so why should I believe them? If some one can actually prove to me that there is a phenomonen called "Black Holes" or that our Univeres is finite then maybe I will believe!

But until that day we only have theory apon theory!!!

Yesterday evening on the TV there was a program with physicist Dr Brian Cross trying to explain explain "Gravity". He made a right hash of this by making several outlandish mistakes!!! So please tell me why I should believe even the top scientists on this matter???

Spencer.

Why should the singularity, if one exists at the (bottom) of a black hole be cold? Because it does not radiate any energy of any wavelength.Nothing inside can move.It is totally static.Hence, cold.

As for the cold of the expanding universe, we see small illustratations of it at the present.The coldest spot detected in our universe is actually colder than the background microwave energy.It was caused by the expanding gas of a supernova.

Imagine this on a greater scale, and you can see why the "Big Bang" should have been very cold.As for transforming cold into energy? Cold is the absence of energy.It does not "rob" anything of anything. Energy dissipates from a higher to a lower state.

If I reverse the process, will I get antigravity?

Lots of things look good on paper, but will not work in the real world.Mathematically, you can turn a toroid inside out without cutting a hole in it, but noone has been able to do it in the real world.

When you come up with a device that transforms expanding gas into gravity, I will buy some stock in your company,

If object "A" falls into a black hole, and a few minutes later, object "B" falls into the same black hole, will object "B" ever strike object"A" ?

Object "A" has a head start, and assuming all objects fall at the same speed, even into a black hole,object "B" will never catch "A", unless there is some point at which the falling stops.If the black hole is infinitely deep, the falling never stops, and no ojects ever reach their destination, the "singularity" wherever that is. So is a black hole really eternally collapsing?Are all objects strung out to infinity as the gravity gradient becomes steeper and steeper?Will this form strings, that eventually fragment and vibrate as they do so and break loose from the grip of gravity by becoming small enough to slip thru any inhomogeniety in the gravity field , or to become resonant with it, but out of phase, such that gravity repels it, only to reappear in a different form as the building blocks of all matter in our universe?The full circle unbroken?

This would be an elegant way to recycle matter and energy.

Any thoughts on this? Comments?

HiTekRedNek, Most elegant!! The current understanding of the "event horizon" is that as an object approaches it time for any observing it seems to slow down. The horizon itself is never reached from the observer's viewpoint. No one can say what the object experiences.

An interesting theory I have heard is that an object falling into a massive black hole does not experience the destructive tidal forces that are prevalent in a smaller black hole because the gravity gradient is significantly less.

Therefore objects falling into a black hole at the center of a galaxy may end up in another part of this universe or even another universe.

It could be that the matter/energy of the object is recycled through so called Seyfert Galaxies. It would explain some of the missing mass and/or energy in some of the equations of cosmology.

Dragon

"Lots of things look good on paper, but will not work in the real world."

(From your post 16)

Toche! But the difference here is I am asking a question, not asserting it as fact.

Hi HiTekRedNek

I was not stating anything as fact, but stating my opinion. My conclusion from "State of the Big Bang Theory" was that it is in chaos, though not stated succinctly.

Consider these extracts from Wikipedia on Black Holes:

"While general relativity describes a black hole as a region of empty space with a pointlike singularity at the center and an event horizon at the outer edge, the description changes when the effects of quantum mechanics are taken into account.

According to general relativity, a black hole's mass is entirely compressed into a region with zero volume, which means its density and gravitational pull are infinite, and so is the curvature of space-time that it causes. These infinite values cause most physical equations, including those of general relativity, to stop working at the center of a black hole. So physicists call the zero-volume, infinitely dense region at the center of a black hole a "singularity".

But there is an important uncertainty about this description: quantum mechanics is as well-supported by mathematics and experimental evidence as general relativity, and it does not allow objects to have zero size—so quantum mechanics says the center of a black hole is not a singularity but just a very large mass compressed into the smallest possible volume. At present we have no well-established theory that combines quantum mechanics and general relativity; and the most promising candidate, string theory, also does not allow objects to have zero size."

Note that paragraph 2 contradicts paragraph 1. Some people take their own theory and "blame" it on general relativity to give it the clout of Einstein. I certainly disagree with paragraph 2, but note what the other 2 theories predict! It seems that black hole theory is in chaos too.

Regards,

S

I agree that a black hole's center cannot have zero size.There has to be a form of matter or energy that can support the pressure of a black hole.Perhaps space-time itself has a limit to how far it will deform, a stretch limit, so to speak.It may be very pliable, but there may be a limit. More matter otherwise would make the hole deeper, and the event horizon smaller, instead of larger.If it were deep enough, the hole could possibly "heal" itself by the opposite sides touching and filling the gap: a "scar" in space time.Great distances of space and time could be pulled close together at these points, and anything attempting to cross them could cross light years and years in a split second.A wild scenario, I know, but imagination is free, lack of it is costly.

I perceive an irritation of people who state theories as fact, which I may be guilty of. This does stifle imagination and thought. I have experienced this on CR4. The problem, I think, is that we need some sort of base to start a discussion on. The reading I have done on black holes has always described them as having a size, with more matter increasing the size. I don't know what the prevailing theory is, or even if there is one, and I don't care. As has been stated, it's only a theory after all.

I do believe they exist, but I have a lot of trouble believing in a singularity. We are talking about infinity here. So I believe that with enough mass accumulated in a black hole, the quarks could be crushed in the center. Would that result in a singularity? Who knows. Maybe there are smaller particles that are much bigger that strings that would then need to be crushed first. Would gravity be affected by that? Again, nobody knows, and maybe nobody ever will.

Another thought that goes back to the original subject of absolute zero in a black hole:

They may be the largest example in nature of a BEC.If absolute zero is truly unobtainable, then the black hole has to be as close as you can get, because there is no, or practically no motion. At these temperatures strange things happpen (Whoda thunk?). Light slows down to a crawl,and can actually stop, and gravity performs strange, out of character actions, and fluids can pass thru otherwise impermeable barriers.Combine these effects with the intense pressure and space-time curvature, and who-knows-what-else forces and effects, and you have a pool seething with unknowns, a deep well of ignorance, the depths of which we may never fathom. So at this point, one opinion is about as good as another, and the black hole is in no danger of giving up it's secrets anytime soon.

This is truly the final frontier.

Hi HiTekRedNek,

Maybe I am missing something, but when gravity (or anything else) compresses matter, the temperature goes up, not down. The surface of the sun is about 10,000 degrees, but the center is 2 million, because of the pressure. With a black hole, as you pointed out, none of the energy can escape, so it is trapped in there.

"... a deep well of ignorance..."

True, this would be a better name for the black hole. As far as absolute zero causing different effects, that is very interesting to me. It seems that there might be a whole new set of laws of physics involved! It certainly is a frontier.

Regards,

S

Under normal circumstances, matter behaves as you described. Molecules are free to move about.The more molecular motion, the more heat is radiated.

But under the extreme conditions that theoretically exist in a black hole, nothing can move at all .True, it would be extremely hot if it were able to radiate energy, but it cannot.This energy is trapped within, compressed into another form of which we cannot describe or know, possibly all the way down into matter.So in that respect: no radiated heat, it is absolutely cold, and as any cold object, it will absorb heat from anything around it.But a black hole is an omnivore, it absorbs everthing.A black hole in one sense is very cold, in another, due to pressure, it is very hot.Hot and cold at the same time?Why not?One object in two places at once?Why not? This was once considered impossibble, but now is an accepted event on quantum levels.

If a black hole were allowed to expand at an observable rate,as the gravity weakened, it would radiate heat, then gasses, which when allowed to expand, would begin to absorb heat in order to expand.So the heat is consumed and expressed as molecular motion of the gas.Later, as gravity causes the gas to form clouds, and the clouds compress, they begin to get all excited again, and radiate heat outward.

Sounds kinda like a hormone imbalance.

In the normal process of lowering temperature, energy is removed, reducing molecular motion, but in a black hole molecular statis is accomplished by exactly the opposite process.

This of course, is just my personal perception, and I could very well be wrong.

Knowledge is gained by curiosity.

Wisdom is gained by heresy.

Could gravity be absolute zero? Could the center of the earth be absolutely cold? Since light is collected at near absolute zero with Bose-Einstein condensate, and photons collect as matter this would explain the separation of light dark , hot cold in the early universe. I would think absolute zero would have an unlimited ability to catch and hold photons converting them to matter!

Quantum mechanics may hold the truth to reality itself:

We may actually be part of the singularity.Entangled objects can cross space in no time at all, so something is wrong here.Call it "Spooky Action..." or whatever, it could also mean that space and time are an illusion.The electron changes from a wave to a particle when observed, so to me that implies that observation is the factor that causes the change.

We cannot define something till we can measure it, and to measure it, we must change it,thereby making all measurments innacurate by default.

The past exists only as electro/chemical reactions in our present brain.If we had amnesia, we would have no past, no concept of time before now.Time is a construct to allow us to make "sense" of our reality, to merge events into a continuous coherent theme.

But does time really exist as a dimension of our universe? To our species it does, for without it nothing makes sense.But if time is flexible and pliable as theroized, then all events are predetermined, and we are very reluctant to accept this as fact.The past is fixed, that is certain.We cannot change what has happened.The arrow of time advances.We like to think that we can affect the future, but can we really? If all events are the result of previous events, then all events are connected at some point, and the results will always be the same if the same conditions are kept.

It is our consiousness that deceives us.

I believe that the Big Bang started with a black hole from another universe. It would make sense and would also compliment the theory of multiple universes.