Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Soul Surfer on 15/11/2019 11:18:52
-
Page 1 of 10
Introduction
There are several books and papers pointing out how the main physical constants that define the properties and evolution of our universe are very finely balanced if complex atoms stars and even life itself can exist. In his book Life and the Universe Lee Smolin suggests that it appears that these constants are very close to those needed to create the maximum number of stellar mass black holes. He goes on to suggest that this may be a hint that some sort of evolutionary process could be involved. These initial concepts are presented in this excellent you tube Video By space time
This short note examines this possibility and aims to establish and takes in much further with more details of the possible processes involved to create a credible and disprovable hypothesis that could be expanded by others with greater skills than myself.
Background
Firstly a bit of background about well established current thinking in cosmology. From observation and the extrapolation of the physical laws as currently understood our universe had a very hot smooth extreme density beginning followed by expansion cooling and the formation of atoms, stars, galaxies and a generalised stringy structure of clusters of galaxies. It will end with a slow cooling and fading into nothingness. The origins of the universe and the values of the critical physical constants that define its evolution are in the absence of any evidence initially considered to be set randomly consequently it appears that a universe with properties like ours would be highly improbable. To get round this problem there is a tendency to think that there must be a vast number of isolated bubble universes existing in a Multiverse. Alternatively it leaves open the possibility that there is some sort of sentient creator of universes. Both of these approaches are very philosophically unattractive and stilted
Initial thinking
If a universe through its life could create other universes a totally different scenario could be imagined furthermore if there existed among all the possibilities one (or more) ways in which a universe could create during its life other isolated universes substantially similar to itself these sorts of universes could rapidly dominate any other universes that could happen by random events and make it probable that we might find ourself in a universe of this kind.
Proposition
I propose to suggest a way in which this might be possible totally in line with current observational and theoretical physics and astronomy and also suggest that it is tractable to current and near future theoretical and practical skills and potentially disprovable and will post more on this topic shortly however if you wish to preempt this. current work in progress this area may be seen on https://iankimber.org .
-
Page 2 of 10
What are the basic requirements for a multiverse consisting of evolving universes?
An origin for universes
Firstly we need to have a process for the origin of universes. Currently most thinking avoids this question by saying "some sort" of quantum process could kick things off. This may well be enough at the very beginning. However for an evolutionary process we need more. We need a process in which a universe can itself, or by some interaction between universes can create other universes.
What would its properties be?
It would have to be where part of the universe is cut off from the rest of the originating universe(s) by some process and then continues on with its own existence independently leaving only a shadow of its creation. Ideally it should also be seeded in some way with elements of the originating universe.
Are we aware of such a process?
Currently we are well aware of a process like this. That is, the creation of a black hole during the latter stages in the life of a high mass star. This is the most common sort of black hole in our universe. So that is a good place to start. The big question is how can such a small object lead to a big universe?. The simple answer is that the process of collapse to a singularity under an inverse square law not only results in an infinite energy density it also releases an infinite quantity of energy!
This is simply provable by considering the energy released by a thin massive spherical shell of matter collapsing under the gravity of the mass inside the shell that is also collapsing towards a theoretical singularity.
This energy is (largely) invisible to observers outside the black hole and is ample to create a universe that is large and complex.
The results of the process will probably depend on starting conditions
That is the sort of universe that is created by this process will be dependant to some extent on the actual conditions for the universe creation It therefore follows that having a reasonably precisely defined process for the creation of a new universe would be a good idea. The compressed collapse of the core of a high mass star will probably define quite precisely the moment the event horizon first forms. This gives us the conditions that we need for the process.
-
Page 3 of 10
The evolution of physical laws
We now need to think a little more deeply about the potential "evolution" of the physical laws and "constants" that define how these physical laws interact. At this stage In the thinking process I will discuss the ideas in the most general way.
The first part of this process is to stress the fact that it is important to bear in mind the physics underlying the way our universe operates. Quantum mechanical uncertainty defines a “veil” of space and time within which we cannot observe individual events but only observe the collective results of what is going on behind the veil. These results are described with great precision by the mathematics of quantum field theory. The basic mathematics of this involves integrals of wave functions over all of space and time (within the universe) describing in a probabilistic way the positions and motions of particles that can be observed outside of the veil of uncertainty. Within this veil almost anything that is allowed can (and possibly does) happen.
The very success of the pure mathematics of quantum field theory has to an extent hidden the physical insights underlying the origins of quantum mechanics from more recent generations of mathematical physicists. Let us go back to the early origins of quantum theory and consider the original de Broglie model of the Hydrogen atom which led to the full development of quantum theory.
This showed that the electron orbitals of the isolated hydrogen atom were essentially "cavity resonances" of the electron De Broglie wavelength. This is an experimentally observable wave property of electrons that is defined by the electron's momentum. Considering an electron as a particle "orbiting" the nucleus under electrostatic attraction it is clear that under certain conditions the De Broglie wavelength will resonate with the orbital period. Quantum uncertainty adds "noise" to this process resulting in the familiar statistical spread of the orbitals determined by the results of quantum electrodynamics. The process of adding in this noise involves infinite integrals over all of space and time. Following this sort of dynamic analysis to more complex atoms gets extremely difficult particularly as energies get higher and momenta get relativistic.
High energy nucleon interactions producing mesons were also originally viewed as resonances producing subatomic particles that were metastable.
All this was superseded by the mathematical simplification of the Dirac notation and quantum electro and chromo dynamics. This takes these infinite integrals over all of space and time (within the universe) as symbols that can be manipulated. This has tended to hide the underlying physical principles of these integrals from succeeding generations of quantum physicists.
String theory also sees particles as resonances in waves that create persistent effects. What I am trying to illustrate is that there are "physical" processes going on inside the uncertainty veil, which produce longer term observable effects. Current teaching of quantum mechanics tends to ignore this physical background in favour of the much more precise and successful pure mathematical quantum field theory.
-
Page 4 of 10
The nature of our physical laws and the constants that determine their interaction.
The values of the critical physical constants are often described as a result of "random" symmetry breaking as the universe cools from its initial extremely hot conditions. However physical experience shows that in real life when symmetries are broken in this way what happens is usually far from random, often producing structure of great order, because of the interactions of the particles involved. A good example of this is crystallisation. This also applies in the quantum world. Even a glassy transition to a semi random and chaotic but stable structure has order in it. What I am trying to say is the laws that we observe are not the result of random but resonant processes that effectively extend the time for which any structures associated with underlying interaction probabilities exist for long enough to be observed outside of the veil of the uncertainty principle. The suggestion therefore is that the processes that will be favoured as things settle out are the ones that will extend interaction longevity the greatest. That is resonant and or recycling processes. This creates an evolutionary drive in physical processes that may be initially seen to be purely random. It also fits well with the mathematical process that calculates the probabilities of various observations happening.
Mathematics is and always will be a powerful tool for analysis and synthesis. However it does have limitations in that physical process simplifications always have to be made to the model to allow the process to be modeled. A good example of this can be seen in "string theory" in which an arbitrary concept of a resonant vibrating string is used to replace the concept of point particles. This has produced a vast array of potential models which could possibly result in a universe like ours but it says nothing about the nature of the "string", which is essentially the simplest concept after a point and it allows awkward infinities to be avoided. All this work is good but it will need some sort of physical insight to point the way towards the more likely models. I would like to suggest that the simplest physical insight is that of a local space-time vortex creating a linear structure along its axis. This could initially be conceived considering gravitationally driven vortices in space time along classical lines similar to the de Broglie resonant electrons and that the development of a concept of relativistic space time computational fluid dynamics could prove interesting.
-
Page 5 of 10
Real and Imaginary Concepts
The main mathematics of quantum field theory operates using imaginary or complex numbers and in order to return the probability of a particular quantum event it is required convert them back to real numbers. Wave theory and standard engineering understand these arise from oscillatory or repetitive processes. This could be a hint to the nature of the underlying nature of the physical processes behind the mathematics. Please note I am not in any way implying that there is any sort of absolute solution which gets rid of the probabilistic nature of the quantum processes but that like the original De Broglie there are underlying resonant drivers involved.
Moving On
The next stage is to look a little deeper at the two processes that I have described above and check if it is possible, using physical rather than pure mathematical processes, in the most basic sense, to end up with a universe as large and complex as ours by applying them. Hopefully this will then be able to be linked into the vast array of mathematical thinking that already exists and lead to a real breakthrough in fundamental physics and cosmology leading to a true "theory of everything".
-
Page 6 of 10
The Continued Collapse inside Black Hole
The first and most obvious question to answer is, could a universe as large and complex as ours come from the collapse of a stellar mass black hole inside its event horizon?
It is accepted that the basic physics does not change as the event horizon is crossed and locally there are no significant changes other than the increasing gravity gradient. Let us then consider the collapse of material inside a stellar mass black hole starting immediately after an event horizon has first formed. Let us initially consider the simple Schwarzschild or non-rotating and balanced charge case .
The collapsing material is hot and turbulent and will continue heat up as a result of the release of gravitational potential energy being turned into kinetic energy. As it collapses further the gravitational field continues to increase as the inverse square of the radius.
Let us consider the collapse of a spherical mass from radius r to r/2. Simple mechanics shows that an individual particle at the surface of this mass will gain energy in proportion to the reciprocal of the radius change ie 1/r as the radius change is r/2 the value of the radius disappears! that is a constant amount of energy is converted from potential to kinetic energy for every halving of the radius of the collapsing mass. This will tend to infinity as r approaches zero. So the total energy confined within the event horizon heads towards infinity.
This collapse is over a finite distance and takes a finite time. but the conditions under which it takes place allow the particles to have a vast number of interactions while it takes place. It follows that in the collapse of even a small stellar mass black hole there is therefore plenty of energy available to create a whole new universe as large as or even larger than our own observable universe. There is also sufficient time for particles to interact and multiply by pair production as the temperature rises. Note the creation of new mass by pair production will also increase the gravitational field and cool the the collapsing mass. With this amount of energy available inside the event horizon any subsequent material falling into the black hole after the initial collapse event has taken place is largely irrelevant and will be discounted at this stage of this presentation.
Mathematics clearly states that once the event horizon has formed, the matter inside a non-rotating black hole collapses to a mathematical singularity of zero dimensions containing an infinite quantity of energy within a finite time. This is clearly very bad physics and does not make sense in the real world but it is what all the textbooks say and most people accept. Essentially I see this as a way of saying, something must happen but we have no idea what! I have been unable to find any analysis of what might be an attempt to work towards real physical solution to this by analysing this collapse in detail as far as our current understanding of high energy physics allows but I will offer you a simple and fully plausible one based totally upon accepted physics now.
Let us assume we have a body collapsing under gravity in empty space and forming a black hole. Let us assume that no other particles or radiation are entering the hole.
Consider the instant that the event horizon forms. This is the moment that photons cannot escape "to infinity" however particles will be interacting at the collapse surface and radiating photons and particles in all directions. Photons and particles created by interactions close to the surface of the collapsing mass can always escape some short distance from the contracting central mass before being dragged back into the main body of matter. The photons will travel the furthest. Let us call this limit the "photon sphere". The collapsing mass will be inside this "photon sphere" although the particles will be travelling at speeds quite close to the velocity of light so this will not be very much inside this limit. The "photon sphere" represents a sort of second "event horizon" defining the limit of the radiation from the collapsing mass. As the gravitational field increases this photon sphere will contract with the rest of the mass. Between this and the real event horizon in our universe superficially there is absolutely nothing other than the quantum mechanical vacuum as long as no matter or radiation is falling into the hole.
Now this Photon sphere may represent the “firewall” inside a black hole that recent quantum studies have talked about but the important thing it is not as you initially cross the first event horizon to infinity but much deeper inside the structure.
Now is there absolutely nothing between the event horizon to infinity and the firewall? It is currently accepted that the event horizon of a black hole to our universe radiates energy in the form of Hawking radiation and that this can cause black holes in totally empty space to decay very slowly to nothing. The total energy radiated is proportional to the gravitational gradient at the event horizon. (see ref below) This energy loss is incredibly small for all gravitational gradients that we can expect to encounter in our universe. However as the gradient increases it increases without limit. That is, a gravitational gradient radiates energy away from a gravitating source into its photon sphere.
This result implies that the photon sphere of material collapsing inside the event horizon of a Schwarzschild Black Hole will radiate energy in proportion to the gravitational gradient at its surface. This radiation will of course eventually fall back into the hole but it will take some time doing it, let us call this time the "return time".
The rate of energy loss over the return time is in effect a drain on the total energy in the hole. As the main mass continues to contract towards the "singularity" and the gravitational gradients increase further this energy loss rate will increase as the inverse square of the radius (source http://http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/ ) The energy gain by the collapse as worked out above increases only as the inverse first power of the radius. This means that the energy loss would eventually overtake the energy gain from gravity and the structure will become a stable (tiny) radiating fuzzball of an incredible but non infinite quantity of energy.
Note this estimate is only very rough and does not take into account the effect of changes in the return time. Again using http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/ and inputting that the radiated energy should be around 10e20 solar luminosities to approximately equal that of the whole observable universe comes out with the result that the radius would be around the Planck length. However small this is still vastly bigger than the infinitesimal size of a mathematical point. It may also be the starting point for our first and most important constant, the constant of quantum mechanics itself, the Planck constant.
The non-rotating black hole is of course also a mathematical simplification. All black holes will contain some angular momentum and follow the Kerr structure. This approach will be the start of the next stage of the argument.
-
Page 7 of 10
A more detailed analysis of a Rotating black hole inside its event horizon
Part 1 An overall view of the collapse process
Firstly let us assume for simplicity that the angular momentum is (slightly) less than the absolute maximum that the mass of the hole may contain and that no further matter or radiation are coming into the hole. The gravitational collapse continues inside the event horizon. The initial collapse will continue, the particles will interact and the material will heat up further. Let us assume that it is rotating as a fluid body and eventually the outer surface will be rotating with a velocity approaching that of light at the equator and this cannot contract further. Particle interactions will then cause the angular momentum to be shared out and the inner particles will gain more angular momentum and it will settle down to a toroidal structure heading towards the theoretical "ring singularity" as described by the Kerr solution to the equations. (see virial theorem)
It is unlikely that there is no residual angular momentum in other dimensions so as this settling down continues a toroidal rotation in one direction around the orbital axis will happen and the end result is likely to be a toroidal surface. Particles will be spiralling round the position of the theoretical ring singularity. However a significant local change has taken place. There has been a change in the local dimensionality from spherical (3 dimensions) to cylindrical (2 dimensions) which means that the local gravity follows an inverse first power law rather than an inverse square law. (see the appendix dimensionality of universes and conservation laws) this slows down any collapse allows more freedom of movement and will result in the particles oscillating about the theoretical ring singularity axis.
Now consider in detail what happens on the smaller scale as the collapse continues. As the temperature rises, collisions between particles will become more violent and particle antiparticle pairs will be created. This will in effect drain energy and angular velocity from the system and reduce the temperature rise. The increased mass will also allow the torus to collapse to a smaller diameter thus releasing more gravitational energy.
Electron pair production cooling processes have already been considered as the process driving some rare exceptionally violent large supernovas.
A balance of annihilation and creation of particles will be achieved but it is known that there can be a slight imbalance that allow one form of matter to dominate in time this may well be related to the final stable geometry established. This means that the collapse process will create a lot more matter(or antimatter?). The collapse process will also gradually cause a cooling down of the temperature as the particles and radiation settle down to their orbits the energy differentials reduce and the mean free time between collisions will increase.
So far there is one big omission in this analysis and that is the effect that all this is happening with the particles moving in orbits at relativistic velocities and the effect of frame dragging or gravitomagnetism has not been considered these effects cannot easily be included in this thought experiment at this time and will probably require more expert analysis than I can provide but here is a suggestion. one of the main analyses of the Kerr black hole shows a gravitational repulsion effect in some areas of the space around the ring singularity and this leads us on to the next question.
-
Page 8 of 10
Part 2 The Reversal Problem
I understand from comments in other review papers there are some mathematical Physicists working on the problem of converting a collapsing system into an expanding "big bang". clearly this is a vital requirement for the concepts presented here to work and currently I can think of three physical properties that might do this of which any or all may describe the process of converting a collapse towards a singularity to a big bang when seen from the point of view of the particles involved.
To clear up any uncertainty it is clearly not possible whatever happens for the results to explode out of the event horizon because that is irrevocably sealed and limited by the physical laws in our or any other similar universe. There are however plenty more dimensions available for expansion to occur because all main theories of everything have far more than the conventional three of space and one of time available to them.
Firstly Supersymmetry
Supersymmetry includes both bosonic and fermionic particles of all types this could include the concept of a gravitino a particle that interacts only through gravity but has the property of fermionic exclusion. This in effect will create a repulsive gravity effect and would reverse collapse provided it‘s interaction couplings were appropriate to prevent it from becoming totally relativistic at the energies involved in the final stages of collapse when it would be generated.
Secondly Matter- Antimatter symmetry
There is a broken symmetry between matter and antimatter that is as yet unexplained and this could be caused by the geometry of the collapse, which is not totally symmetrical. This would also play a part in establishing the large-scale geometry of the resulting universe, which may be detectable at the limits in our universe.
Thirdly Relativistic dilations
It may just be a relativistic effect of the way a universe looks from the point of view of something that is inside it. That is, what are really small dimensions just "look" large because of the coherent behavior of the particles involved. Remember relativity says time and space always look perfectly "normal" to you and with things that are moving in the same way and in a similar gravitational field to you. Time and space only distort in your perspective when you look to places where fields and velocities are different that is at a distance. Let us look at this third and as I see it most important effect
-
Page 9 of 10
Part 3 Local view of the particles and space time
This is a vital part of this thought experiment. Relativity rules apply! There is a strong tendency for people to visualise black holes as looking from the outside as if the event horizon was transparent this is bad thinking, it is important to consider what this "universe" looks like from the point of view of the particles involved as the space time collapses towards this theoretical ring (or toroidal) singularity.
Orbital motion implies that there is always a certain amount of coherency in the particle movements. Initially the temperature will rise as gravitational energy is released and then “cool down” as particles are created and motions become more and more coherent, The gravitational field and potential will become higher and particle velocities closer and closer to the velocity of light and particle interactions less frequent.
Although the particles are moving in a tight set of toroidal "orbits" around a linear orbit around the main centre of gravity, from the point of view of the individual particles time dilation will mean that they will become more spaced out from their own point of view.
It is also important to consider the effects of the local "dimensional restriction" on the conservation laws. The classic inverse square law requires the existence of three local dimensions.
Now the standard texts describe that inside the event horizon space becomes time like and time space like. Roger Penrose with his Penrose diagrams of space and time considers the possibility of moving past "the singularity" to get to another universe like a wormhole. Can I now suggest that we consider that the "time like" space collapses towards a linear or toroidal surface singularity to become time in a new universe and the "space like" time expands to become space in a set of dimensions different from the space that has just collapsed.
It is now interesting to note that antimatter is often described in texts as identical to ordinary matter running backwards through time so it seems likely that our new universe could be dominated by what is in our universe called antimatter. It is also interesting to note that in a paper by Max Tegmark there are two stable universe conditions one with three dimensions and one of time and one with three dimensions of time and one of space but this latter universe contains only tachyons i.e. particles travelling faster than light now relativity states that particles travelling faster than light “move backwards in time” that is they would be identical to antiparticles in our universe. Please note particle antiparticle asymmetry is an important symmetry breaking that is not discussed properly in the standard theory of the development of our own big bang but is now observed in high energy physics experiments.
This could now represent a process similar to our observed big bang however the process has also been "seeded" with particles from our universe and although there may be changes on physical laws, There will be restraints caused by this seeding.
After this collapse process has happened, further material may fall through the original event horizon but it will appear only as a small number of extremely high energy (antimatter?) particles in the vast new universe that has in effect expanded from the small amount of matter that first created the "singularity" in the black hole. This may result in one of the potentially observable confirmations of these concepts.
-
ADDENDUM
The above 9 pages plus page 0 below completes my first presentation on this complete topic
There are partial presentation on these concepts in the "new theories" area about 5 or 6 years ago
I have not posted or answered questions here for some years and had thought these pages had gone off air
This is a fuller development of ideas I presented some time ago
I would appreciate comments and confirmation that I have not made any fundamental mistakes in what I think is a concept well worth some serious study.
For a look at my work in progress and other approaches to describing this idea go to https://iankimber.org
-
Oh, and welcome back after a seeming 5 year hiatus.
From reply 1:
What would its properties be?
It would have to be where part of the universe is cut off from the rest of the originating universe(s) by some process and then continues on with its own existence independently leaving only a shadow of its creation. Ideally it should also be seeded in some way with elements of the originating universe.
This is a begging description. Black holes are a premise, and here we are stating that its properties would be much like that of a black hole. Fine and dandy, but it doesn't justify the text below that congratulates itself for finding something that meets this requirement.
So I don't see why creation of a new universe would need to leave behind a shadow. My mother didn't particularly leave behind a shadow when creating the independent offspring of me, so not sure how this property is necessary.
As for 'seeding', there needs to be a mechanism like DNA to pass on charateristics from the parent to the child so the child is similar, but still slightly different (mutated) so that some kind of natural selection (generating more/better black holes) can occur.
The big question is how can such a small object lead to a big universe?. The simple answer is that the process of collapse to a singularity under an inverse square law not only results in an infinite energy density it also releases an infinite quantity of energy!
It violates thermodynamic law to say this. Infinite density at a singularity is not unexpected, but it isn't infinite energy. The energy is limited to the mass of the black hole, say a large star. Gravitational potential energy is negative, so there is no net gain of energy of the system.
On the flip side, it is posited that there is a net energy/mass of zero in our universe, so big piles of energy are not required to make one.
This is simply provable by considering the energy released by a thin massive spherical shell of matter collapsing under the gravity of the mass inside the shell that is also collapsing towards a theoretical singularity.
I think the proponents of this idea do suggest that matter does make its way into the interior and not get stuck at the event horizon, but this does lead to some paradoxes which must be resolved. In particular, any event within a black hole is in the future light cone of any event just outside of it in our spacetime. That means anything in there takes indefinite time (our frame) to do so, and since the black hole has a finite lifespan (it will evaporate via Hawking radiation in some finite time), the black hole will be gone before any matter can make its way inside. The black hole is gone before anything inside 'happens'. This needs to be resolved.
-
The fecund universe model predicts that neutron stars should have an upper mass limit of around 2 solar masses. Not that long ago, a neutron star with a mass of 2.14 solar masses was detected. So make of that what you will.
-
Hi Soul Surfer. I’d like to echo Halc’s welcome back. This has nothing to do with the thread, but just a couple of days ago I found in my notes a Doc entitled “Soul Surfer on Hawking Radiation”. Checking the date of the original I found it was a response to my question of 14.10.2010. That could well have been my first post on TNS.
My response: Thanks SS, in over 100 P S books I have yet to find an explanation that comes near yours.
still holds good. I hope to find time to read this thread; there could be more gems about.
-
Hi SoulSurfer, glad to see you are still surfing...
First, I think we should discuss the necessity of a multiverse. The fact that humans exist should not be a reason for a multiverse. If you accept that the simplest model explaining everything should be the best, then only the number of necessary parameters should be an indication of a possible multiverse. The more parameters, the more probable it is. Each parameter of our universe, if irreducible, represents a physical asymmetry in this universe. Each other universe would fill one or many asymmetries of our universe so that in the end, you get fewer parameters. A singular universe still necessitates many irreducible parameters. You could think of something like the number of dimensions + one or two (5 or 6).
There are three possibilities, either there are parallel universes (a multiverse in space and time), a singular cyclic universe with a single set or a singular universe with a different set for each cycle (a multiverse in time).
In the absence of a unified theory, it is difficult to know how many parameters we need to describe our own universe. With a unified theory, the number of parameters should decrease substantially. Moreover, any theory containing divergences or infinities is irrational, which means it has no satisfying solution. Only a theory containing a finite space and energy in finite cycles over an infinite time is rational. Anything outside of this implies an irrational assumption from the beginning. Some people believe the Universe is irrational, I don't for obvious reasons if you are a true scientist.
Personally, I would bet for a singular universe with a single set but there is still a possibility that dark matter is the gravitational interaction of a few parallel universes which have there own electromagnetic interactions. Observations do not prove nor disprove this hypothesis yet, so it is still a possibility.
Unless we cannot unify parameters to reduce their number substantially, I don't see the necessity for more universes than that.
A multiverse should have only one virtue and it must be simplification.
Before suggesting a multiverse, we should try to unify the many physical theories we already have...
A last important reasonable assumption is that the entire Universe is always connected somehow. How can you divide the whole of everything that exist? It is not only a whole but The Whole... And all particles should be connected only once to all other particles for any present interaction to avoid infinities, otherwise, each particle would be connected to itself in an infinite series of loops. A flat space seems more than reasonable in this context.
-
From what I have found, the gravitational redshift and the momentum redshift would smeared the wavelength of the particle over the horizon as it approaches it. Any particle and any black hole have a necessary residual rotation which will prevent a true horizon to form. Particles will be stuck rotating with the BH before touching the virtual horizon. At the Big Bang, it might not have been the case... Only one Schwarzschild black hole to rule them all... It is a good hypothesis, in the absence of an outside space, a static black hole becomes a naked 'singularity'. Everything is within a Planck time and a Planck length, with no center... hypothetically speaking, of course... The symmetry becomes maximal and the entropy is minimal.
The particle going through the horizon from its own point of view is highly questionable. According to Einstein, the different points of view of the different observers must be reduced to simple delays of observation. It means that over all the history of the universe, all observers would see the exact same history of all particles to respect the chain of causal events.
-
Thank you all for your replies now to get down to the answers which I will take in chronological order
Halc. 12:25 15 nov
Clearly my title "Is an Evolutionary Cosmology possible?" declares my bias. I am trying to explain how I believe that an evolutionary cosmology could work within the bounds of current thinking and cannot expand all the arguments in this restricted format. For several views of my thesis go to my website and follow through into my PBworks PublicWiki. Note I do not normally allow others to comment on this wiki it is just that I am used to working and organising my thinking in this format rather than a conventional web page.
http://iankimber.pbworks.com/w/page/10732331/FrontPage
This text did not include the other attempt by a recongnised experienced scientist to take this approach to cosmology that is Fred Hoyle's "continuous creation" hypothesis back in the 1940s-50s (I remember it well!) This suggested that a continuously expanding universe could be a stasis by the creation of a very small and undetectable number of hydrogen atoms from the quantum mechanical vacuum. This was proved not to be the case by the proof that our universe evolves and changes through time (big bang theory).
Halc. 15:59 15 nov
The shadow left by your mother was your umbilicus and the placenta which came out some time after you were born. In the same way the black hole that internally created a universe as large and complex as ours in a different set of dimensions from ours will fade out and vanish in time.
Read further and think. Consider the physical evolution of particles atoms and stars through time which we understand quite well and use the analogy to consider ow physical laws might evolve. physical evolution in a cooling universe favours things that last longest in time. our laws settle out forma an infinite dimensional potential the way they do because they tend to favour the things that last longest in a metastable state.
Thermodynamics is not violated by my proposals and the energy (and mass!) created by the collapse of the matter inside the event horizon cannot be observed outside.
Now a couple of general notes to thinkers on this subject
There is no reason to believe that physical laws change abruptly as an event horizon is crossed. Also the gravity and gravitational gradient at event horizons in our universe are not excessive in terms of individual particle interactions. That only come much later in the collapse well inside the first horizon.
What we see of material entering the event horizon is irrelevant what happens is what the individual leptons and quarks "experience" as they interact furiously a vast number of times in their relatively long passage towards the theoretical "singularity".
-
Thank you all for your replies now to get down to the answers which I will take in chronological order
Halc. 12:25 15 nov
Clearly my title "Is an Evolutionary Cosmology possible?" declares my bias. I am trying to explain how I believe that an evolutionary cosmology could work within the bounds of current thinking and cannot expand all the arguments in this restricted format.
So just explain how it could work. I don't mind the bias, but I mind the dismissing of the prevailing views by calling them "philosophically unattractive and stilted". The seeming fine tuning in fact attracts much attention from the 'creator' stance and is pushed as significant evidence for the stance. If you lack the space to take down the 'creator' view, then fine, but what I protest is the waving it away with reasons that don't hold water.
I've heard of the evolution proposal but hadn't seen it fleshed out in any detail.
In the same way the black hole that internally created a universe as large and complex as ours in a different set of dimensions from ours will fade out and vanish in time.
This view isn't all that different from the fractal eternal inflation theory that has each 'bubble' being birthed from some parent universe. The differences are that it isn't necessarily via black holes, and more importantly, no mention of a selection process that results in the tuning (as opposed to the more unlikely randomness) that we see.
Read further and think. Consider the physical evolution of particles atoms and stars through time which we understand quite well and use the analogy to consider ow physical laws might evolve. physical evolution in a cooling universe favours things that last longest in time. our laws settle out forma an infinite dimensional potential the way they do because they tend to favour the things that last longest in a metastable state.
Black holes will indeed eventually be predominant, perhaps even over burnt out suns and rocks and such, but a universe in that state is also less likely to be observed.
Thermodynamics is not violated by my proposals and the energy (and mass!) created by the collapse of the matter inside the event horizon cannot be observed outside.
We can compute them using the laws that we know, and I was suggesting you've made an error in doing so. The details were in reply 5, but I was waiting for a reply before diving into that.
If you're going to wave away thermodynamic law due to the fact that we cannot observe the inside, then you also preclude yourself from positing what goes on in there, and your idea depends on that.
What I personally see is either a flat space with no time at all (and no matter, no change), or a uniform finite universe with material that appears everywhere (just like in ours) but is in some kind of negative expansion. An observer there would perhaps predict a big crunch, as was predicted for ourselves until they measured the acceleration of our own expansion.
I know a little about relativity, and this r/1 -> r/2 free energy thing doesn't work for multiple reasons, one of which is that is assumes Newtonian mathematics, and doesn't even produce new energy in that case.
Now a couple of general notes to thinkers on this subject
There is no reason to believe that physical laws change abruptly as an event horizon is lost.
Don't you need to posit this? How is evolution to take place if the laws are identical inside as they were outside?
What we see of material entering the event horizon is irrelevant what happens is what the individual leptons and quarks "experience" as they interact furiously a vast number of times in their relatively long passage towards the theoretical "singularity".
Is it furious? We're supposedly in a parent black hole ourselves and I don't see this furious interaction. I don't see a theoretical singularity which is drawing everything in. Quite the opposite.
-
Thank you all for your arguments. This is just the sort of criticism I was hoping for. What I hear quoted to me is a lot of standard quotes from the many books that I have read on the properties of black holes and our vision of particles/objects that interact with them as viewed from the outside.
Can I stress again that What I am talking about is what based on our knowledge of physics and relativity will happen in the early stages of the collapse inside the event horizon
To help illustrate this let me consider an isolated large black hole with a mass of around 10E9 solar masses the sort of thing that exists at the centre of many large galaxies but without the complications of a lot of other material nearby orbiting it at high speeds I will use the results from the website http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/ to illustrate what it event horizon looks like.
Its radius is 19.75 AU or about 3E9 KM Very similar to the orbit of Uranus
Its surface gravity is around 1550 earth gravities. Compare this with the surface gravity of a white dwarf star of 350,000 gravities. Physical laws are not distorted under these conditions.
The gravity gradient at the surface is only about 1E-9 Less than that on the earth
It is quite clear that a theoretical space ship could cross this without any stress problems
Furthermore interacting particles at around the velocity of light could easily cause some to slow down and drop through this horizon with no problems.
Consider now a typical ten solar mass black hole with a radius of about 30 KM the surface gravitational stress is
10e8 metres/second per meter. Consider the gravitational stress on a hydrogen atom with a radius of about 0.5A as it passes across the event horizon. It would be slightly distorted but not torn apart. Large objects may be torn apart and spaghettified but atoms face no problems (other than the high temperature interactions with each other!)
So I am pretty sure that there is nothing special about the event horizon itself except that you are no longer interacting with the rest of the universe outside of it.
The rest of my arguments then follow using current well established gravitational and quantum mechanical theory.
So there is no reason not to look into the behaviour of material during the collapse inside the black hole right up to the energy limits set by the large Hadron collider. This will be considerably short of the final limits where the collapse turns into an expansion as a nascent new big bang but may help to understand the processes that will be happening like the creation of lots and lots more particles and mass.
-
Can I stress again that What I am talking about is what based on our knowledge of physics and relativity will happen in the early stages of the collapse inside the event horizon
Again, there are differing opinions on this. The no-interior one says there is no inside in which anything can happen.
To help illustrate this let me consider an isolated large black hole with a mass of around 10E9 solar masses the sort of thing that exists at the centre of many large galaxies but without the complications of a lot of other material nearby orbiting it at high speeds I will use the results from the website http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/ to illustrate what it event horizon looks like.
Its radius is 19.75 AU or about 3E9 KM Very similar to the orbit of Uranus
Its surface gravity is around 1550 earth gravities. Compare this with the surface gravity of a white dwarf star of 350,000 gravities. Physical laws are not distorted under these conditions.
Acceleration to hold position at any black hole event horizon is infinite, not 1550. Not sure where you're getting that figure. If it wasn't infinite, then a ship with enough power to pull 2000 g's would be able to get out, and it wouldn't be an event horizon.
A black hole doesn't have a proper radius (one that can be measured with a tape measure). The Schwarzschild radius for instance is computed by running a tape measure around the circumference and dividing by 2π. Two circles might differ in Schwarzschild radius by 1 km, but a measure of the distance between the circles would yield more than a km, just like if we dropped a rope to the center of Earth it would be longer than the circumference over 2π. Not much, but a bit.
The gravity gradient at the surface is only about 1E-9 Less than that on the earth
Again, not sure of the figure, but agree that the gravity gradient (tidal stress) on a large black hole is definitely far less than that of a little one.
It is quite clear that a theoretical space ship could cross this without any stress problems
If it crosses at all, yes. But inside, 'towards the central singularity' isn't even a spatial dimension, so gravity force isn't even meaningful in that dimension, similar to how I cannot be pulled into the past by a sufficiently large mass that was here yesterday. That the critical part that must be addressed when considering the conditions of material that is posited to be inside.
-
Sorry Halc but you are most definitely wrong in your thinking.
I have already given you the reference three times in this note. Look at it. It is a very well respected java tool. http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/
The event horizon is at the point where the escape velocity is equal to the velocity of light.
Gravitational acceleration is not directly related to escape velocity
The gravitational acceleration of the earth is around 10 meters /second squared its escape velocity is around 11Km/second. Note if the earth was converted into a black hole its radius would be just under 1cm but its escape velocity from a distance equal to the radius if the earth would not change similarly if the sun was changed into a black hole it would have a radius of around 3km and the earth's orbit would not change.
Coming to your spaceship analogy
The most efficient propulsion system possible is that created by converting mass directly into energy of acceleration (This is not possible you can only get half of that in theory). If you calculated the total energy consumption of the space ship needed to achieve that acceleration for long enough to escape the gravitational field to infinity it would have consumed its entire mass before it escaped.
The escape velocity of a gravitating body is
v = sqrt(2GM/r). M is the mass of body, G is the gravitational constant, r is the radius of the body, and v the escape velocity
There are dozens of references to this on the web
Look at the formulae in black hole properties reference above and you will find the radius of a black hole is this formula rearranged to give a radius where this is the velocity of light.
-
Sorry Halc but you are most definitely wrong in your thinking.
I have already given you the reference three times in this note. Look at it. It is a very well respected java tool. http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/
The calculator is computing something else. Wish there was a link explaining.
The disconnect seems to be explained in wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_gravity#Black_holes
In relativity, the Newtonian concept of acceleration turns out not to be clear cut. For a black hole, which must be treated relativistically, one cannot define a surface gravity as the acceleration experienced by a test body at the object's surface. This is because the acceleration of a test body at the event horizon of a black hole turns out to be infinite in relativity. Because of this, a renormalized value is used that corresponds to the Newtonian value in the non-relativistic limit. The value used is generally the local proper acceleration (which diverges at the event horizon) multiplied by the gravitational time dilation factor (which goes to zero at the event horizon). For the Schwarzschild case, this value is mathematically well behaved for all non-zero values of r and M.
When one talks about the surface gravity of a black hole, one is defining a notion that behaves analogously to the Newtonian surface gravity, but is not the same thing. In fact, the surface gravity of a general black hole is not well defined. However, one can define the surface gravity for a black hole whose event horizon is a Killing horizon.
The bold is what I'm talking about (proper acceleration), but the K thing that is in your calculator is defining something else, I think this "surface gravity of a static killing horizon", a term that's new to me.
I also found this on stack exchange:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109137/force-of-gravity-in-the-event-horizon
where an equation (expressed as force on mass m) is similar to the one in the calculator.
Question:
"... about the actual force (in Newtons) that an object with mass m would receive from a Black Hole with Schwarzschild radius if the object was on the Event Horizon"
Answer:
"Hi Peterix, your question has been answered here. – John Rennie Apr 20 '14 at 8:05
Where, I can't find it? Anyway is F=mc4/4GM right? – Peterix Apr 20 '14 at 9:17
No, it's F=ma=GMmr/r² 1/(√(1-2GM/c²r)) – John Rennie Apr 20 '14 at 9:25"
The latter equation I've seen expressed as the "proper acceleration of an object at time t relative to an observer in free fall, who is momentarily at rest w.r.to the object (being held at the horizon) at time t.
Anyway, the 1550 g acceleration (any finite number) cannot be proper acceleration since as I pointed out, any object capable of more acceleration than that can escape from the event horizon, which would be a contradiction.
Not sure what exactly that represents in the calculator since no link is associated with the equation. It seems to be perhaps the acceleration as measured in a different (non-comoving??) coordinate system. We're both correct, but talking about different things. As wiki points out, acceleration at that point isn't clear cut.
The event horizon is at the point where the escape velocity is equal to the velocity of light.
This makes it sound like things could move from inside to outside, but lacking escape velocity, they would eventually fall in. If true, this would violate the actual definition of an event horizon which is any boundary where events on one side can never have causal effect on events on the other.
Gravitational acceleration is not directly related to escape velocity
A ship can escape Earth without ever reaching escape velocity. It just needs continuous acceleration, not even as much acceleration as the local gravity field. OK, it obviously eventually exceeds escape velocity as the escape velocity drops to less than the slow ship speed. So I agree that escape velocity has little to do with it.
Coming to your spaceship analogy
The most efficient propulsion system possible is that created by converting mass directly into energy of acceleration
This depends heavily on how one defines efficiency, but I agree. They have Ion engines that do pretty much this, but they totally lack power. Efficiency isn't going to get you the 1550g you suggest. You need power, however inefficient. A railgun is perhaps up to the task. Not trying to get an object to escape the gravity well. Just trying to move it one meter from inside to outside. That shouldn't be possible even in principle (as it would be shooting something into the past) but if there is a mere 1550g gravity there, that is easily exceeded.
Your reply mostly references practical limitations, which don't refute the argument.
-
Halc You are still thinking incorrectly. The reference you give from Wikipedia refers to what you would "see"and measure from a distant viewpoint as things vanished into the event horizon. I am not talking about that. What you see from a distance is not what is observed by the particles falling through a gravitational Field.
The viewpoint I am taking is what you would see and measure if you were travelling along with the particles and observing what is happening to other particles nearby, True there are relativistic effects but they are not as severe from this viewpoint and things are much more "normal" and understandable and are in fact what is really going on.
Please remember that one of the most misunderstood fundamental truths about relativity is that things always look normal to you and anything else that is travelling at non relativistic velocities. In the classic twin experiment both of the twins would say that time appeared to pass at a perfectly normal rate even though there may be a considerable difference in the the elapsed times shown by the clocks that they were both carrying.
let us now try to come to some points of agreement.
I presume that you agree that the radial position of the black hole event horizon in a spherical gravitational field created by an isolated (point) mass is defined by the point where the escape velocity equals the velocity of light according to the inverse square law The rest of the properties follow simply from this according to the reference that I gave you.
-
Halc You are still thinking incorrectly. The reference you give from Wikipedia refers to what you would "see"and measure from a distant viewpoint as things vanished into the event horizon.
It is not. I'm talking about proper acceleration. It being infinite means that no amount of acceleration will allow an object to escape a black hole once it's at the even horizon. No force can hold it in place. According to your finite figure, if it were the proper acceleration required, there is such a force, and the event horizon can be escaped utilizing said greater acceleration.
am not talking about that. What you see from a distance is not what is observed by the particles falling through a gravitational Field.
A particle falling in any gravitational field 'observes' no proper acceleration at all, per the equivalence principle. If it did, it wouldn't be falling.
The viewpoint I am taking is what you would see and measure if you were travelling along with the particles and observing what is happening to other particles nearby
Yes, the finite value you speak is that. It isn't proper acceleration. I actually am not familiar with the meaning of the formula referenced since I don't understand the meaning of a frame of reference of something at a singularity. Hawking can clarify.
let us now try to come to some points of agreement.
I presume that you agree that the radial position of the black hole event horizon in a spherical gravitational field created by an isolated (point) mass is defined by the point where the escape velocity equals the velocity of light according to the inverse square law
Yes, that gets you the Schwarzschild radius according to the escape velocity formula, which isn't particularly an inverse square law.
-
Yes, that gets you the Schwarzschild radius according to the escape velocity formula,
Ah I think I now understand the problem in our communication. This is the meaning of the term "event horizon".
When I say event horizon I mean the Schwarzschild radius for a simple isolated non rotating black hole. That is the point at which no further communication to a distant observer is possible. This is more complex in the Kerr or rotating case
since I don't understand the meaning of a frame of reference of something at a singularity
It appears you are talking about what happens near a theoretical "singularity" my arguments are essentially that this never happens.
What prevents it from happening. In the first simple arguments it is just that a stasis can be reached via the energy outflow caused by the increasing gravity gradient at the "surface" (hawking radiation) overcomes the energy created by any further contraction towards the singularity. I tend to equate this with what other writers have called the quantum firewall.
If we can get over this impasse we can work towards a proper discussion of the main thesis involving more realistic rotating (Kerr) black holes dealing with dimensionality and how the time like collapse of space towards the "linear" singularity of a Kerr black hole (the new time) and the three dimensional expansion space-like time (space) can result in an expanding universe similar to ours dominated by antimatter and not matter as ours is.
That is that alternate generations of an evolutionary cosmology are matter and antimatter dominated.
Maybe then I can even go on to present the predicted observations that could be made to help to confirm that this thesis may be correct or prove it incorrect
-
When I say event horizon I mean the Schwarzschild radius for a simple isolated non rotating black hole. That is the point at which no further communication to a distant observer is possible. This is more complex in the Kerr or rotating case
I mean that as well. Computation of the event horizon is more complicated given charge and rotation and such, but in the end the concept is the same. If the gravity at the horizon is 1550g's, then communication is possible by an object which has finite force enough to accelerate it at 2000 g's, and it thus isn't an event horizon. Emphasis on 'possible' above.
since I don't understand the meaning of a frame of reference of something at a singularity
It appears you are talking about what happens near a theoretical "singularity" my arguments are essentially that this never happens. What prevents it from happening. In the first simple arguments it is just that a stasis can be reached via the energy outflow caused by the increasing gravity gradient at the "surface" (hawking radiation) overcomes the energy created by any further contraction towards the singularity. I tend to equate this with what other writers have called the quantum firewall.
Kind of over my head. I know the firewall as one possible solution to a unitarity paradox. I'm only a novice at quantum field theory, so I won't be much use in the discussions. I'm speaking about the geometry of the black hole and nature of spacetime for hypothetical events enclosed by the event horizon.
-
You are incorrect Halc and what you say is easily disproved.
It is obvious that from this point particles cannot be launched with sufficient energy to escape and similarly light cannot escape it is after all a black hole.
But consider a spaceship trying to accelerate away from there even if it could manage the thrust needed ?
This is done with a simple total energy calculation that is independent of the method used to generate thrust.
Any particle falling freely from a great distance directly towards the black hole would have gained one rest mass of energy as it passed the horizon at something less than the speed of light. ie Mgh +Mv² ie Mc² where h is very big
That comes from integrating the inverse square law to this point .
It follows that it requires the input of one rest mass as defined by E= M.c²
So for every unit of mass you need the energy contained in another unit of mass to escape, but every unit of mass you add to your space ship you require another, so the ship cannot ever get out "under its own steam".
The real point I am trying to make at this stage of the argument is that there is absolutely nothing special about the Scwartschild radius it is just somewhere in space near a big mass that particles can only travel through in one direction.
Once we can get over this we can then proceed to a worthwhile discussion.
I think that I will express the main points what I am trying to describe in a different way
After more than 20 years hard work on this topic having arguments with myself as to how to describe the concept of an Evolutionary Cosmology and failing to get others to understand what I am talking about I have tried a lot of different approaches.
There are several other approaches in http:/iankimber.pbworks.com
-
Page 0 of 10
Background to an evolutionary cosmology concept
I hope these notes help to provide a bit of the background thinking to the evolutionary cosmology theseis
Fundamental physics currently appears to be rather bogged down in a vast and complex array of potential theories produced by mathematical modelling. What is needed is some way of creating some sort of guide as to how an area of theories that can be explored at a greater depth. Some sort of physical insight will probably be needed to focus studies in the most productive directions.
It is also known that the laws of physics are very finely balanced to allow stars to make complex atoms that then explode to distribute these to catalyse the formation of stars and stellar mass black holes. This thinking is most definitely not anthropic in origin. It is probably purely coincidental that the availability of complex atoms and complex chemistry at modest temperatures this also allows intelligent and self aware life like ours to evolve.
The concept of an Evolutionary Cosmology introduces a potentially disprovable idea that might help to stimulate some new areas of study for theoretical physicists and cosmologists. This might just help to unblock this impasse even if a lot of what is presented here is incorrect.
The concept of an evolved universe has already been introduced by Lee Smolin in this book "The Life Of The Cosmos" where he suggests that the physical laws are balanced in a way that maximises the creation of black holes. This takes this idea further and suggests the processes that might have allowed this to happen and makes initial suggestions as to how some aspects may be tested.
The first and most critical aspect of the concept is that the collapse of a stellar mass black hole inside its event horizon (the Schwarzschild radius or Kerr radii for rotating black holes) to create the theoretical singularity at its centre will during this process release an infinite quantity of gravitational energy.
This is in some ways similar to the "ultraviolet catastrophe" in electromagnetic theory which predicted unlimited energy coming from an unlimited electromagnetic collapse This lead to the development of quantum theory in the first place and has therefore stimulated studies into generating quantum gravity by mathematical synthesis. This approach suffers from the similar problems of many possibilities like fundamental particle string theory.
Although I personally see no reason not to consider the potential gravitational interactions at frequencies in a reasonable number of space-time dimensions where gravitational wave energies defined by the plank constant are similar to the rest masses of the particles. OK I fully appreciate the scales will be fantastically small and well within the Planck scale of things but this could provide some insight. It is also possible that these scales may also be the scales involved in the evolutionary cosmology proposals.
At the moment I am working on putting some reasonable numbers into these ideas.
There is also one other important reference that I would like to quote in relation to these ideas this concerns the available dimensionalities of space time for reasonably metastable long lived universes.
-
Appendix 1
On the dimensionality of space-time
The Dimensionality of a potentially metastable and long lived universe
This is an important paper on this topic
“On the dimensionality of space-time” By Max Tegmark
Go to the link for the important image which is also attached below. I have included the abstract and some further comments below
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf
Abstract. Some superstring theories have more than one effective low-energy limit corresponding to classical spacetimes with different dimensionalities. We argue that all but the (3 + 1)-dimensional one might correspond to ‘dead worlds’, devoid of observers, in which case all such ensemble theories would actually predict that we should find ourselves inhabiting a (3 + 1)-dimensional spacetime. With more or less than one time dimension, the partial differential equations of nature would lack the hyperbolicity property that enables observers to make predictions. In a space with more than three dimensions, there can be no traditional atoms and perhaps no stable structures. A space with less than three dimensions allows no gravitational force and may be too simple and barren to contain observers.
Additional comment
This concept is a vital trigger for the possibility of the matter - antimatter oscillation concept in the black hole evolutionary universe. The important aspect of of CPT conservation is that a collapsing universe of matter by CPT transformation is turned into an expanding universe of antimatter. The quoted description of Tachyons ( matter particles travelling faster than light) is just another way of looking at antimatter that is particles travelling backwards through time. This gets over one of the more fundamental criticisms that is how does this concept obey the laws of thermodynamics which would apply in any universe.
The relationship between dimensionality and conservation laws
Noethers Theorem (QV) demonstrates that symmetries define conservation laws notably translational and rotational symmetry require the conservation of energy and angular momentum respectively
Energy conservation laws constrain the laws relating to the forces associated with long range fields based on the local dimensionality. The classic inverse square law for gravity and electric fields is because we live in a universe with three spatial dimensions because the surface area of a sphere around a point increases as the square of the radius. This defines the way the radiated energy is spread out as one moves away from the point source. I have used the term "local dimensionality" because most root cosmological theories envisage larger numbers of dimensions (possibly infinite) at the most fundamental levels of the bulk from which universes originate.
This can be seen in the cases of pseudo restricted dimensionality. For a source which is an “infinite” line we have only two local dimensions and the energy is spread over the perimeter. This becomes a simple inverse law and for an infinite plane flat surface radiator this spreading becomes a constant because the energy does not fall off. This produces the reciprocal relationships in string theory.
Expanding this concept to more than three dimensions implies that the fields fall off as the number of dimensions less one; for example, the case of four dimensions results in an inverse cube falloff of force with distance. Inverse cube and higher laws do not allow stable orbits to form although other sorts of resonances may be possible. As the dimensionality gets higher the and the inverse power laws related to force get higher the tendency to collapse to a singularity or a lower dimensionality becomes greater if there is any disturbance on total uniformity. In all cases total uniformity is an unstable equilibrium and any disturbance causes expansion or collapse.
The inverse square law is the only one that allows reasonably stable orbits to form. Any variation from this results in collapse or breakup of an orbit with the slightest disturbance from its metastable position.
The "relativity" of dimensions.
There is a strong tendency to consider our dimensions of space and time as sacrosanct and immutable. This I believe is a mistake they are local properties of our universe and do change as event horizons are crossed where space becomes time like and time expands and becomes space like. On needs to free one's thinking in this respect and think of dimensions more in the way that communications and information theory treats them. See A2 Insights from communications and information theory.
As in Einsteinian Relativity of time and space dimensions are themselves relative so new dimensions can expand without interfering with dimensions that collapse.
-
Soul Surfer,
According to your position, what would be the point of view of the particle inside the horizon in regards to the external universe? What does the particle would see?
-
The only information that particles inside the event horizon receive are of course other particles and photons falling through the horizon if they chance to interact with them.
Now if you were in a space ship that thad fallen into a quiet supermassive black hole as described in my example on reply 18 above and also reply 5 (page 6) above.
That is chosen to avoid being fried by the energy of material trying to lose angular momentum to get across the event horizon and the excessive gravitational gradients that would tear you apart.
You would see absolutely nothing at all except for the very cold residual radiation due to the hawking radiation associated with the increasing gravitational gradient. As you continued your fall this radiation would gradually increase as the gravitational gradient increased. However you would be torn apart by the gravitational gradient long before things got too hot to deny you that experience!
You must remember from http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/ to get a hawking radiation temperature of 40 deg C from the gradient the radius of the black hole has to have shrunk to a mere 600 nanometers.
-
It is also known that the laws of physics are very finely balanced to allow stars to make complex atoms that then explode to distribute these to catalyse the formation of stars and stellar mass black holes.
Are said 'complex atoms' necessary for this? I'm aware of the absurdly fine tuning of our universe, but it seems that all you need to make a black hole is some rudimentary 'stuff' that can gather close enough to form an event horizon. Not as easy as it appears. Something needs to make it slow down. Dark matter seems to be predominant in the universe, but the stuff doesn't seem to form black holes on its own. It requires additional forces (EM mostly) to gather mass into tight systems that might qualify as 'objects'. There can be no accretion of dark matter, so it doesn't form noticable gravity wells, but it is still attracted to and contributes to the wells made by normal matter.
I bring up dark matter because it is a nice example of how 'stuff' might all behave if the tuning were a bit different.
-
Long lived Complex nuclei at least up to the complexity of iron (the last exothermal synthesis nucleus) are essential for the development of stars as we know them today and the nucleosynthesis processes that lead to core collapse in supernovae that create black holes.
If there were no stable nuclei beyond say lithium. Stars would be very different. Smaller ones would fade out as the proton proton reaction ran out of fuel. Large stars would evaporate to become smaller as the radiation pressure dispersed them by their stellar winds.
The only black holes would be created by extreme mass stars (100s of solar masses) which can (in theory) collapse directly into black holes without first dispersing themselves by the pressure of the high radiation outflows.
These conditions existed shortly after the end of the "dark ages" as the universe re-ionised although the large stellar winds seeded the universe with nuclei of carbon nitrogen and oxygen (ie created metallicy) and allowed the standard population 1 stars (low metallicy) stars to form. The sun is a population 2 star with a much higher metallicy.
We have not yet observed any of these high stellar mass primordial black holes all though a very high mass one (75 solar masses If I remember it right) has been observed in a binary star recently.
It is also essential to have a particularly accurately defined metastable resonance in a carbon nucleus (predicted originally by Fred Hoyle and later observed in fact to allow nucleosynthesis to jump the "beryllium gap" caused by the fact that 2 helium atoms do not have a metastable resonance to form an isotope of beryllium.
As all this involves bare nuclei in a very hot plasma. The low temperature electron shell (chemical) interactions of carbon that are essential for life like us are totally irrelevant.
Another important aspect of the evolutionary cosmology concept is that the initial core collapse conditions from the Neutron (or possibly Quark) core star that that form a stellar mass black hole are probably quite precisely defined. This happens when conditions exceed their version of the Chandrassakar limit in the formation of a white dwarf star. This would in turn be expected to define quite precisely the size and properties of the emergent universe.
So far I have been unable to find a good reference on this part of the process
-
Long lived Complex nuclei at least up to the complexity of iron (the last exothermal synthesis nucleus) are essential for the development of stars as we know them today and the nucleosynthesis processes that lead to core collapse in supernovae that create black holes.
All that might be essential to stars as we know them today, but none of it is essential to creation of black holes. Pile up enough iron fry pans or used diapers and you get a black hole, with perhaps less bang wasting half the material. All that nucleosynthesis process just seems to delay the process, and sometimes prevent it altogether.
If there were no stable nuclei beyond say lithium. Stars would be very different. Smaller ones would fade out as the proton proton reaction ran out of fuel. Large stars would evaporate to become smaller as the radiation pressure dispersed them by their stellar winds.
Large enough ones would just collapse after the fuel ran out. In a universe where atoms are not fuel for any process at all, there would be no need for fuel to run out. Just saying that there seems to be plenty of viable physics for creation of black holes since they're such simple things. The complexity we see in starts needs the fine tuning, but not the black holes.
The only black holes would be created by extreme mass stars (100s of solar masses) which can (in theory) collapse directly into black holes without first dispersing themselves by the pressure of the high radiation outflows.
I actually am not very familiar with radiation pressures and such, but it seems like a poorly tuned universe wouldn't have the processes necessary to generate such radiation.
-
You are incorrect Halc and what you say is easily disproved.
Perhaps so, but you haven't done it. I think we're just talking about different things.
But consider a spaceship trying to accelerate away from there even if it could manage the thrust needed ?
It only has to move a centimeter, but you seem to be assuming it needs to achieve escape velocity on the spot.
The question askss what the gravity is at the surface of a black hole, which is sort of misleading because an event horizon isn't a surface. But we can visualize the question by putting a strong shell around the mass and measuring the gravity (acceleration) at various radii of the shell. Our answer is what that measurement will approach as the radius of the shell approaches the Schwarzschild radius, or rather as the circumference of the shell approaches that radius times 2π. Radius itself is not directly meaningful.
And the answer to that problem I think lies in how that acceleration is measured, and one gives you your answer and one gives infinite.
Point is (first point anyway), there is no rocket, no energy requirement, no velocity, not even force. There's just a stationary accelerometer measuring the gravity in g's.
This is done with a simple total energy calculation that is independent of the method used to generate thrust.
Any particle falling freely from a great distance directly towards the black hole would have gained one rest mass of energy as it passed the horizon at something less than the speed of light. ie Mgh +Mv² ie Mc² where h is very big
That comes from integrating the inverse square law to this point .
Contemplating the energy of a falling thing seems pretty irrelevant. Nothing is falling in the question at hand. Nothing is coming from or going to the zero potential energy. Nothing is trying to escape.
The real point I am trying to make at this stage of the argument is that there is absolutely nothing special about the Scwartschild radius it is just somewhere in space near a big mass that particles can only travel through in one direction.
Something can seemingly travel the other way if it is pushed/pulled hard enough. A one gram object needs 15.3 newtons of force to achieve 1550 g's of acceleration. So the object could be pulled out with a string that can withstand 16 newtons of force. That's been my argument, and maybe it's wrong. For instance it assumes that outward is a spatial direction, which is arguably not true, but how is 1550g's a meaningful value if the direction of the acceleration vector is not a spatial one?
So for now, consider a dense mass with gravitational time dilation factor of 10% at its surface. A clock well away (but still a finite distance) measures 10 minutes for every 9 minutes on the clock on the surface. Now built a tall tower on the surface reaching the upper clock, and dangle a weightless string from there back down to the surface. Plop a 9-Newton weight on the string (something that weighs 9 Newtons on the surface). What is the force at the top of the string at the tower? Is it still 9 Newtons? I don't think so. I suspect 10. We've build an accelerometer of sorts with this setup, and the two values are different (or are they?). One seemingly violates the action having an equal and opposite reaction law, and the other answer seems to be able to implement reactionless thrust. Therefore, is a force meter a valid form of accelerometer? It can be done without force, such as timing an object as it is dropped from a small height. That method definitely yields different values for gravity for the two different reference frames.
-
Halc you are producing fatuous and not properly thought out arguments here for example in talking about pulling things out with strings what about the weight and strength of the string.
I appreciate that you are one of the moderators here and have some knowledge of physics but i would really like to have a proper discussion with a good mathematical physicist well versed in gravitation and cosmology and not someone who has been blinded by a lot of the "gee whizz" presentations of many popular authors.
Can I recommend that you start by reading Roger Penrose "The road to reality" this should clear out a lot of your initial hangups on what after all is only the preamble for what I am trying to get over. It provides a really good introduction to proper mathematical physics. I have read it several times and use it as a reference on many topics.
In reality the most fundamental message that I am trying to get over is that:-
Not thinking seriously about the physical processes that happen inside event horizons, as defined by the point at which the escape velocity from a gravitational felt of a body reaches the velocity of light and no more information other than hawking radiation, is just the same as thinking that what is happening in our own universe at the moment is not interesting because thermodynamics tells us that everything will in our universe will end with the "heat death" and stasis.
I am in the process of creating a third approach to my concept of an evolutionary cosmology in which I will present the concept in a series of small logical and scientific steps together with a simple statement of the cosmological concept.
I am also developing a slightly modified Penrose Diagram illustrating the whole process ver simply.
I plan to post these here shortly.
-
I’ve still not had time to look at this thread, but mention of Penrose and black holes makes me wonder if this, or the links from it, might not be reasonably on topic.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/black-hole-singularities-are-as-inescapable-as-expected-20191202/?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=124154e809-briefing-wk-20191206&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-124154e809-42120079
-
I am not by any means suggesting that black holes are escapable in our universe except that they could in theory evaporate by Hawking radiation over an incredibly vast time provided the universe was cold enough.
Currently the microwave background is far too hot for any stellar mass or larger black hole to loose energy.
From the Hawking radiation calculator, for a black hole to have a Hawking radiation temperature equal to the 2.725 deg K background radiation it would have to have a mass of .00754 of the mass of the earth (4.5E19 metric tons) and have a radius of 6.6 micrometers. So for a black hole to evaporate it must be smaller than this.
What I am suggesting is that the newly created universe expands in totally different "spatial" dimensions that exist in our universe but are currently very small and "wrapped up". These "wrapped up" dimensions are an accepted part of most string and cosmological theories.
If you look at the maths the collapse of some dimensions leads to an expansion of others. The simplest illustration is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as you squash the space dimension the time dimension becomes more uncertain and expands.
As you cross an event horizon and continue the collapse space becomes "time like" in its unidirectional progress towards the "singularity" and time becomes space like and expands to become multidimensional and multidirectional through uncertainty. ref Penrose "The road to reality"
-
Further work on this idea has been moved into the New theories area go to
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78272.0
-
I have just realised that I had not answered a couple of important comments on this thread and must apologise for the wrong draft that has been posted up for a few days.
Firstly in reply to CPT Ark Angel reply no 14 on 16 nov 2019. I have tried to make it quite clear that I am not suggesting any sort of Anthropic principle. Life as we experience it is just a fortuitous stable conditions and low temperature addition to the fact that complex nucleii are essential for the creation of conventional stellar mass black holes.
As far as dimensionality is concerned I am suggesting 6 complex (two part) dimensions ie 12 in all of which only three of space and one of time are large scale dimensions and the remaining are compact and Co located with all the other extended dimensions.. Whether a dimension is "space like" or "time like" is flexible and an event horizon is the first stage in the transfer of space like to time like dimensions and vice versa. This results in alternate expansions of the universe being dominated by matter and antimatter. All the expanded matter particles have essentially a "counterpoise" of quantum entangled antimatter locked inside the collapsing co-located compact dimensions. That is probably enough on that for the moment.
AS far as the number of critical parameters to form a universe like ours I refer you to the excellent book "Just Six numbers" By Martin Rees who points out how very few finely balanced constants define our universe. There are several other good books on the same theme.
One other aspect of your comment seems to suggest that following on the lines I am suggesting os pointless. I hope to answer these shortly but must go elsewhere now.