Post by: MikeS on 02/01/2012 07:46:34
If energy (as well as mass) creates gravity then what is the difference between the above and saying the Universe originated from a black (or white) hole?
If a black hole then what mechanism can cause a black hole to effectively explode (for lack of a better way of phrasing it)?
I know this is bordering on the unknown but it would still be good to get some feedback.
Post by: Bill S on 03/01/2012 01:27:49
Post by: MikeS on 03/01/2012 07:47:32
True and I have amended the question accordingly.
Post by: Bill S on 03/01/2012 17:59:49
Post by: MikeS on 04/01/2012 06:52:38
Post by: Soul Surfer on 04/01/2012 14:52:19
Using the standard black hole reference page http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/
In its final year an evaporating black hole works through about 70,000 metric tons of mass and radiates it away as particles and energy. That is less than our sun gets through every second. In its last second it gets through about 220 metric tons. The explosion is about one and a half million megatons in nuclear terms but that is absolutely microscopic compared with a supernova in fact it would be difficult to detect an exploding black hole much further away than the nearest star. This is a very long way away from anything like the big bang.
Post by: Bill S on 04/01/2012 16:53:35
Quote from: SS
The exploding black hole would of course always be behind its own event horizon because whatever it did it could not possibly explode through it.
Where would a naked singularity fit into this picture?
Post by: CliffordK on 05/01/2012 03:10:02
There is some evidence that the Black Holes are capable of emitting some highly energetic matter.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/23/extragalctic_black_hole_snap/
What we don't know is what would happen to a Black Hole if it contained all the matter and energy of a billion galaxies.... or, for that matter, just a half a dozen large galaxies.
Post by: MikeS on 05/01/2012 08:37:53
Clip
There seem to be more theories about Black Holes than actual observations.
There is some evidence that the Black Holes are capable of emitting some highly energetic matter.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/23/extragalctic_black_hole_snap/
It is speculated that if a black hole is fed with 'food' faster than it can 'swallow' it, some is thrown out in the form of energetic jets. These jets can be as long as the diameter of a galaxy, contain antimatter particles, be seen to be accelerating and travelling at a significant proportion of the speed of light. This mechanism is poorly understood and seems to be counter intuitive unless the antimatter originates within the event horizon of the black hole. It then makes perfect sense.
http://www.spacetoday.org/DeepSpace/Galaxies/MilkyWay/Antimatter.html
Post by: imatfaal on 05/01/2012 10:26:38
Post by: MikeS on 05/01/2012 11:21:01
quote from my last post
"unless the antimatter originates within the event horizon of the black hole. It then makes perfect sense."
I don't have any links but the idea is simply based on that is what would happen if matter and antimatter gravitationally repel each other which is certainly a distinct possibility but as yet unknown/unproven.
Post by: CliffordK on 05/01/2012 15:25:44
Perhaps as part of the condensing matter in the black hole, the black holes must shed positive charges from the protons to prevent +/+ interactions. Of course, that means both loosing electrons and positrons to maintain a neutral system.
Electrons and Positrons, of course, are heavy compared to photons, but light compared to protons and neutrons. The exact mechanism and origin of the emissions needs more research.
Post by: CliffordK on 05/01/2012 19:20:00
I don't have any links but the idea is simply based on that is what would happen if matter and antimatter gravitationally repel each other which is certainly a distinct possibility but as yet unknown/unproven.
The above discussion was specifically related to Positrons, so I'll limit my discussion to that particle.
The positrons are relatively easy to make, so I believe they've been extensively studied.
According to Wikipedia, there are specific masses attributed to each of the elementary particles:
Neutron Mass: 1.674927351(74)×10−27 kg
Proton Mass: 1.672621777(74)×10−27 kg
Positron Mass:9.10938215(45)×10−31 kg
Electron Mass:9.10938291(40)×10−31 kg
With a neutron being slightly heavier than a proton, and a positron being a slightly different mass than an electron.
However,
One also has the simple decays:
Neutron minus Electron --> Proton (lighter particle)
Proton minus Positron --> Neutron (heavier particle)
Which I would think takes one in a circle.
So, is it possible that the positron mass is actually fundamentally different than the electron mass?
Post by: Yuling on 05/01/2012 20:19:54
There seem to be more theories about Black Holes than actual observations.
This is true.
In fact, Hawking radiation (an attempt to explain away the information loss paradox) has not been directly observed and as such, has no observational 'proof' to back it up. It only has math to back it up. There are stronger theories out there which are ridiculed because of a lack of observational evidence or because we lack the technology to test (e.g, string theory).
While likely correct, until we observe Hawking radiation, I think people need to stop talking about it as if it's already fact.
Nobody knows what goes on inside a black hole - quantum mechanics and relativity both break down at the singularity so no predictions can be made. Everything everyone says about what happens at the singularity is pure speculation.
Post by: MikeS on 06/01/2012 07:40:07
When I talk about antimatter emissions from black holes I am referring to positron emission as you observed. It is speculated that the intense energy and gravitational forces at work within the event horizon would create electron positron pairs. If matter and antimatter are gravitationally repulsive then the electron is bound by the intense gravitational field whilst the positron is gravitationally expelled through the event horizon and accelerates away.
Post by: CliffordK on 06/01/2012 08:10:49
If matter and antimatter are gravitationally repulsive then the electron is bound by the intense gravitational field whilst the positron is gravitationally expelled through the event horizon and accelerates away.Which could be a problem because one would quickly develop a large negative charge within the black hole, and a large positive charge in the surrounding space where electrons are annihilated.
It is apparently possible to make a positron beam, so I would think the reaction of a positron beam to Earth's gravity (vs electron beam control) could be observed in a linear particle accelerator (using it like a large vacuum tube). The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center is 1.9 miles long, with CERN planning to make a 20 mile linear accelerator in the future if they can justify the $6.7 billion dollar price tag.
Post by: imatfaal on 06/01/2012 10:57:19
I don't have any links but the idea is simply based on that is what would happen if matter and antimatter gravitationally repel each other which is certainly a distinct possibility but as yet unknown/unproven.
The above discussion was specifically related to Positrons, so I'll limit my discussion to that particle.
The positrons are relatively easy to make, so I believe they've been extensively studied.
According to Wikipedia, there are specific masses attributed to each of the elementary particles:
Neutron Mass: 1.674927351(74)×10−27 kg
Proton Mass: 1.672621777(74)×10−27 kg
Positron Mass:9.10938215(45)×10−31 kg
Electron Mass:9.10938291(40)×10−31 kg
With a neutron being slightly heavier than a proton, and a positron being a slightly different mass than an electron.
However,
One also has the simple decays:
Neutron minus Electron --> Proton (lighter particle)
Proton minus Positron --> Neutron (heavier particle)
Which I would think takes one in a circle.
So, is it possible that the positron mass is actually fundamentally different than the electron mass?
Clifford - I am not sure this is quite what you are getting at - but your two "simple decays" are a little misleading. They seem to be over-simplified versions of
and 
but they are missing neutrinos antineutrinos and and Energy input for 
. Natural proton decay - ie without a boost of energy is predicted, but very rare, halflife is 10^32 years and is via pions.I will put more detail in for the two forms of beta decay when I get my keyboard sorted out (my new linux distro has defaulted my keyboard to a wrong setting and I cannot find the slash and backslash which makes typing latex equations very labourious)
Post by: imatfaal on 06/01/2012 11:17:25
There seem to be more theories about Black Holes than actual observations.
This is true.
In fact, Hawking radiation (an attempt to explain away the information loss paradox) has not been directly observed and as such, has no observational 'proof' to back it up. It only has math to back it up. There are stronger theories out there which are ridiculed because of a lack of observational evidence or because we lack the technology to test (e.g, string theory).
While likely correct, until we observe Hawking radiation, I think people need to stop talking about it as if it's already fact.
Nobody knows what goes on inside a black hole - quantum mechanics and relativity both break down at the singularity so no predictions can be made. Everything everyone says about what happens at the singularity is pure speculation.
Yuling - firstly welcome to the forum!
second - Hawking Radiation was not an attempt to explain away the information loss paradox, it was the cause of the information loss. According to the theory of Hawking and Bekenstein the information in the radiation (a mixed quantum state) could not include the pure quantum information of the particle that fell into the black hole. Hawkings postulated solution was quantum fluctuations in space time emanating from the EH - this is by no means agreed.
And although Hawking Radiation has never been observed (we are looking through the GLAST (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_Large_Area_Space_Telescope) programme) it relies on the same set of axiomata and preconditions as the rest of mainstream physics and the maths and logic flow from the body of work that is experimentally supported. Other less accepted theories use new and difficult preconditions. String Theory is a strange one - it is mathematically beautiful and self-consistent, but at present it is not linked to reality enough; it does not use the same lean and simple axiomata, and it is not open to empirical testing. There are so many variants of string theory ( ie changable variables that will produce different physical predictions) that it is a matter of tuning to reproduce particle masses etc - until some more non-string theory reasons for these particular tunings and assumptions can be shown string theory will continue to be interesting but not mainstream.
regarding your last paragraph - totally agree. Any theories about the singularity or past the event horizon even are fundamentally divorced from our reality and must be treated with skepticism.
Post by: MikeS on 06/01/2012 11:25:47
CliffordIf matter and antimatter are gravitationally repulsive then the electron is bound by the intense gravitational field whilst the positron is gravitationally expelled through the event horizon and accelerates away.Which could be a problem because one would quickly develop a large negative charge within the black hole, and a large positive charge in the surrounding space where electrons are annihilated.
Why is this a problem?
Post by: imatfaal on 06/01/2012 11:33:32
CliffordIf matter and antimatter are gravitationally repulsive then the electron is bound by the intense gravitational field whilst the positron is gravitationally expelled through the event horizon and accelerates away.Which could be a problem because one would quickly develop a large negative charge within the black hole, and a large positive charge in the surrounding space where electrons are annihilated.
Why is this a problem?
For a start the like charge of the black hole and the electron will repel and the electrons will stop falling into the hole at some point - the opposite charge of the BH and the positron will attract and eventually overcome gravitational repulsion. BUT please can we keep speculative theories to NEW THEORIES
Post by: CliffordK on 06/01/2012 12:28:27
Clifford - I am not sure this is quite what you are getting at - but your two "simple decays" are a little misleading. They seem to be over-simplified versions of
10C (10.0168532 u) --> 10B (10.0129370 u) (β+)
11C (11.0114336 u) --> 11B (11.0093054 u) (β+)
13N (13.00573861 u) --> 13C (13.0033548378 u) (β+)
13O (13.024812 u) --> 13N (13.00573861 u) (β+) (89.1% of the time)
14O (14.00859625 u) --> 14N (14.0030740048 u) (β+)
15O (15.0030656 u) --> 15N (15.0001088982 u) (β+)
229U (229.033506 u) --> 229Pa (229.0320968 u) (β+) (80% of the time)
So, while β+ (positron) decay is not uncommon, one does, in fact, loose mass in conjunction with the decay, greater than the published mass of an electron (0.0005 4857990946 u) (which would also be lost).
Post by: imatfaal on 06/01/2012 16:42:38
Clifford - I am not sure this is quite what you are getting at - but your two "simple decays" are a little misleading. They seem to be over-simplified versions of
10C (10.0168532 u) --> 10B (10.0129370 u) (β+)
11C (11.0114336 u) --> 11B (11.0093054 u) (β+)
13N (13.00573861 u) --> 13C (13.0033548378 u) (β+)
13O (13.024812 u) --> 13N (13.00573861 u) (β+) (89.1% of the time)
14O (14.00859625 u) --> 14N (14.0030740048 u) (β+)
15O (15.0030656 u) --> 15N (15.0001088982 u) (β+)
229U (229.033506 u) --> 229Pa (229.0320968 u) (β+) (80% of the time)
So, while β+ (positron) decay is not uncommon, one does, in fact, loose mass in conjunction with the decay, greater than the published mass of an electron (0.0005 4857990946 u) (which would also be lost).
One never violates mass/energy conservation in these reactions - and there certainly is no circular decay path. I am still not sure what you are getting at.
decay
This is NOT equivalent to
which you seem to be implying it is.
Post by: MikeS on 07/01/2012 07:16:27
CliffordIf matter and antimatter are gravitationally repulsive then the electron is bound by the intense gravitational field whilst the positron is gravitationally expelled through the event horizon and accelerates away.Which could be a problem because one would quickly develop a large negative charge within the black hole, and a large positive charge in the surrounding space where electrons are annihilated.
Why is this a problem?
For a start the like charge of the black hole and the electron will repel and the electrons will stop falling into the hole at some point - the opposite charge of the BH and the positron will attract and eventually overcome gravitational repulsion. BUT please can we keep speculative theories to NEW THEORIES
But the charge of the black hole is within the event horizon so surely is not felt by the electrons outside the event horizon? Also charge is short range where gravity is long range and we are talking overwhelming gravity.
Positrons are likely to be expelled at great velocity due to the immense gravity of the black hole. The gravitational 'push' whilst declining with distance is still going to accelerate the positrons. The charge attraction being short range soon declines with distance.
Post by: MikeS on 07/01/2012 07:34:38
I have no objection to you splitting this thread if you like. The problem, I find is there tends to be very little debate in the New Theories forum. As well as having a New Theories forum perhaps a Non-Mainstream sub section could be added to Physics, Astronomy and Cosmology forum? This way non-mainstream ideas that are not necessarily new-theories as such could be discussed. If it was a sub-section Moderators could move any posts in the main forum to the sub section if relevant and without asking. So long as the posts were cross indexed it should not be a problem. Just an idea. What do you think?
Post by: Peteuplink on 08/01/2012 12:32:27
Post by: MikeS on 08/01/2012 12:52:29
I was once told that asking the question of what was before the big bang is like asking what is beyond the north pole...
Easy, the South Pole.
Post by: dropoutscience on 28/01/2012 18:29:07
Post by: MikeS on 29/01/2012 07:57:58
I can't go into further detail in this mainline thread but it is theoretically possible that the universe may be cyclic.
Post by: dchung on 11/12/2012 11:47:35
Post by: yor_on on 11/12/2012 15:57:33
And maybe we will.
Post by: evan_au on 16/12/2012 05:46:23
Quote
Was the Big Bang an exploding Black Hole?I think the question may be worded ambiguously:
- From a viewpoint outside the black hole, anything that passes the event horizon does not come out again intact, as far as we know [apart from diffused radiation if and when the black hole evaporates]
- If the big bang was initially dense enough to form a black hole [seems logical, given current theories], then our viewpoint is not outside the event horizon, it is inside the event horizon.
- So the most interesting question is not "what can cause a black hole to effectively explode [from a viewpoint outside the black hole]?"
- But "what can cause a black hole to effectively explode [from a viewpoint inside the black hole]?"
As Yuling said:
Quote
Everything everyone says about what happens at the singularity is pure speculation.
One attempt to guide those speculations looked at light cones (the path of light emitted at a point, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone). They looked at light cones outside the black hole, and tried to extrapolate that to the event horizon, and then inside the event horizon. Assuming this extrapolation to have some validity, the volume inside the black hole may have consistent physics, but would not be considered "normal space" by an observer outside the black hole!
One interpretation of this extrapolation is that inside the event horizon, the dimensions of time and space are swapped, in some sense.
Could what seems to an observer outside the black hole like matter & energy falling into an extended surface over an extended period of time could seem to an observer within the black hole like a lot of energy appearing at a single point in space at a single point in time?
This conjures up an image of an Inception-like series of nested universes with twisted geometries, in some sense embedded in one another, but cut off from one another.
Post by: Downunder on 15/09/2018 13:20:08
Ok, are they the same? A singularity is a singularity. The only variation from one to the other is mass. So in essence, yes they are the same to varying degrees of mass.
To say that the singularity of a Black Hole doesn't have a mechanism to explode and expand outward is the same as saying that the singularity of the Big Bang doesn't have a mechanism to explode and expand outward. But without knowing the exact mechanism, scientists must assume there is one.
The universe is showing how the singularity of a Big Bang can occur as we observe life cycles of Black Holes with Astronomy. So to say that the singularity of a Black Hole cant grow to the critical mass to ignite a Big Bang event is the same as saying that the Big Bang cant have happened at all because a singularity doesn't have a critical mass to ignite the event. You cant have one and not the other. Either the Big Bang didn't happen or Black Holes can cause a Big Bang event if they grow big enough.
I hypothesis that a critical mass exists whereby a singularity (or a similar object with small but not infinitely small dimensions) reaches a point that a Big Bang event occurs. Below the critical mass the object is stable. A Black Hole that consumes matter (or Dark Matter if you like) to the extent that it reaches the critical mass, will ignite a Big Bang event. I hypotheses that this process occurs in cycles. I hypothesis that it doesn't require multidimensional universes or Turtles all the way down either. All Big Bang events occur in the one universe. Space, mass and time is compressed in one location in the universe to a singularity and is cyclically released when the critical mass is reached. The Space, mass and time is uncompressed and released back to its original state (via Big Bang expansion). Like a rubber ball being squashed and then released. I hypotheses that the remnants of one Big Bang event (that is stars, galaxies, matter, anti matter, dark matter etc.) may overlap and encounter the remnants of other Big Bang events. The remnants combining together and the cycle of gravitational coalescence continues. Remnants from two of more Big Bang events gravitationally crunch down to a singularity until they reach critical mass again and another Big Bang event occurs. The Big Bang event is not creating space and time and mass as it expands. It is simply returning them back to their normal state. The gravitational crunch phase that compresses Space and Mass and Time is like a spring being compressed. The Big Bang Phase is like the spring's energy being released back to its normal state.
Its a cyclical process, it occurs in the one single and only universe plain.
Thank you,
Steve McMaster, Australia.
Post by: guest45734 on 19/09/2018 17:08:53
If the big bang was initially dense enough to form a black hole [seems logical, given current theories], then our viewpoint is not outside the event horizon, it is inside the event horizon.
So the most interesting question is not "what can cause a black hole to effectively explode [from a viewpoint outside the black hole]?"
But "what can cause a black hole to effectively explode [from a viewpoint inside the black hole]?"
All Big Bang events occur in the one universe. Space, mass and time is compressed in one location in the universe to a singularity and is cyclically released when the critical mass is reached
In a zero energy universe dark energy and gravity causing the expansion and contraction of the universe can be regarded as negative energy, other forms of energy are +ve energy. Looking at gravity, if a black hole/singularity is the absence of space time, could quantum black holes over time have the same effect as the perceived big bang. Theoretically Hawking radiation could allow a large BH to evaporate over time, could the same apply to quantum black holes virtual or otherwise.
The theoretical ER and EPR allows for wormholes in space time ie a shortcut through space, if ER = EPR could all black holes be connected to the same wormhole, rather than existing inside a Black hole event horizon could we in actual fact exist inside a wormhole between a black hole in the past to a white hole in the future. Would there be an edge of space time inside a wormhole.? Is there any extant theories speculating the expansion of space time is driven by black holes ?