[Airthumbs (OP)]

We have established that holding our Galaxy together is a vast amount of Dark-matter.  It has also been established that if matter and dark-matter interact directly they will destroy themselves.   So it seems to me there is a little problem as both dark-matter and matter seem to exist in the same region of space time, our Milky Way, and the billions of others! 

Does anyone else find it a little bit peculiar that at the centre of all the mass, both of matter and dark-matter that there exists a  phenomenon by the name of Super Giant Black Holes! 

Could it be possible that Blackholes are in fact more like a Worm-hole that allow interactions between these two types of matter.  As matter enters a Wormhole instead of being drawn into an infinate singularity, created to essentially deal with the physics of all that matter having to go somewhere,  there is a possibility matter is obliterated inside a Black-hole at the point where anti matter and matter meet.  The Dark energy released goes one way and the energy released on our side we see as gamma rays and so 4th.....

[Soul Surfer]

Firstly it has most definitely not been established that matter and dark matter destroy each other there is absolutely no evidence for this.  Matter and dark matter interact only through gravity.  It has been suggested that dark matter contains both particles and anti particles that could destroy each other but they have such a low probability of interaction that detecting them could be difficult.

I t is most definitely not peculiar that galaxies and globular clusters contain high density vrty heavy objects(black holes) at their centres it is to be expected  theyare the condensation nicleii on which such large scale structures form. 

Black holes clearly seem to a  one way route to somewhere else but at the moment no one is brave enough to simulate what happens with the processes that we know and understand just inside the event horizon as black holes are collapsing and just run to this mathematical end game of an infinite density infinite energy "singularity"

This is just like saying that our universe is totally uninteresting because it is all bound to end slowly with the thermodynamic "heat death" where everything expands to nothingness.  However as we know very well lots of interesting things are happening around now a very long way away from this ultimate fate.

OK some people may say that this collapse to a singularity will happen in a finite time.  This only happens if particles do not interact with each other when they interact it is a totally different story.

[Airthumbs (OP)]

Soulsurfer, I think I must be getting confused between Anti-matter and Dark matter.   Doing some reading up.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

[Airthumbs (OP)]

It is most definitely not peculiar that galaxies and globular clusters contain high density vrty heavy objects(black holes) at their centres it is to be expected  they are the condensation nuclei on which such large scale structures form. 

But... but.... I thought that it might be possible the nuclei would be created by Darkmatter attracting all the matter in the first place and the resulting Blackholes are due to the nature of matter once a certain density has been reached?

And I would never say intentionally that the Universe was boring!  Quite the opposite and I am glad my presumptions were due to a lack of understanding and confusion over negative energy, dark energy, Dark matter, anti matter, tis all a bit of a minefield!  But I'm quite happy to be running around in it.... however I reckon some folk are just waiting for one of them to go off!   

[Soul Surfer]

When a matter collapses under the effect of gravity it gets hotter as the gravitational potential energy is turned into the kinetic energy (heat of the particles).  This heat  can eventually prevent further collapse if it cannot be dissipated. 

Ordinary matter can radiate this energy away as the particles interact electromagnetically and produce photons.   This is how stars form. 

Dark matter cannot do this because it does not interact electromagnetically or by the strong or weak interactions only gravitationally.  The only way it can radiate energy away is in the form of gravitational waves and this needs vastly stronger and rarer interactions so dark matter cannot cool down and condense in reasonable time periods.

The smallest condensations of dark matter appear to be about the size of Galaxies or slightly bigger.  This is why the galaxies are the size that they are.  There are some galaxy sized objects with very little ordinary matter or stars in them but they are extremely difficult to detect and observe.

[Nizzle]

Black holes clearly seem to a  one way route to somewhere else but at the moment no one is brave enough to simulate what happens with the processes that we know and understand just inside the event horizon as black holes are collapsing and just run to this mathematical end game of an infinite density infinite energy "singularity".

I don't think Black holes have infinite density. For me, they're just a giant lump of quarks and leptons held together with a whole lot of bosons. The electrons surrounding the atoms get smacked on the nucleus by gravity to stay charge-neutral, which vastly reduces the size of 1 atom, and thus vastly increases it's density, but not to infinity. I consider a black hole as being some sort of QGP

This is probably oversimplified or even wrong, so I'm happy to read the arguments why my vision of a black hole is incorrect.

PS: If in the future we discover that quarks are made up of even more basic building blocks, I'll change my black hole vision to a giant lump of that new stuff.

[imatfaal]

I don't think Black holes have infinite density. For me, they're just a giant lump of quarks and leptons held together with a whole lot of bosons. The electrons surrounding the atoms get smacked on the nucleus by gravity to stay charge-neutral, which vastly reduces the size of 1 atom, and thus vastly increases it's density, but not to infinity. I consider a black hole as being some sort of QGP

This is probably oversimplified or even wrong, so I'm happy to read the arguments why my vision of a black hole is incorrect.

PS: If in the future we discover that quarks are made up of even more basic building blocks, I'll change my black hole vision to a giant lump of that new stuff.

Agree that infinite density (infinite anything) is a pretty good sign that something is awry - in fact it is one of the major reasons we need quantum gravity theory. 

On the actual matter - you are describing various sorts of degenerate matter, kind of.  The most famous sort is that of neutron stars - ie very dense neutronium.  In neutron degeneracy (stars bigger than the chandrasekhar limit at around 1.44 solar masses) the pressure is such that electrons merge with protons, in a sort of reverse beta decay, to form a single mass of neutrons.  There is a possibility that at even greater pressures the quarks making up the neutrons will take up less space when not bound in threes - this is all a bit hypothetical tho.  Quark Gluon Plasma - is not quite the same thing as quark degenerate matter.

To be super-boring - at present, both observationally and theoretically the black hole is the volume of space within the Event Horizon.  Anything beyond that is out of our comprehension, observation, lightcone, and possibly interaction.  Never say never, but probing beyond the EH is not possible at present

[Airthumbs (OP)]

I think there is a Sicentist out there right now who is looking for the shadow of a black hole by combining many hundreds of telescopes together and creating an area the size of North America as the lens.  When I say a Scientist it's more like a team, all the information is stored and in about two years time they will use a supercomputer to combine all that data and search for the shadow of a Blackhole.  LATEST BLACK HOLE SCIENCE DOC 

[Æthelwulf]

I should first of all say, I agree with imatfal, if that is how you spell his name.

I should say I share his contentions on whether infinities report to physical reality. I don't, which is why I think he is right in what he says.

I remember being on sciforums.com a while back and I posted the question of whether a particle could in fact have dimensions and the moderator of the time none present at the moment, said that this was psuedoscience and cast me to the depths of the other psuedoscientist area with the ban list.

I found it disingeuous of anyone to purport to understanding the fine dichotomy of the question ''does infinity exist,'' and if it does, ''what does it mean physically?'' -- we know straight away, atleast from a mathematician's eyes, infinity cannot be any real quantity or even physical.

We attribute physical attributes which can be measured by Hermitian Matrices. If it was a particle for instance, like an electron, the electron has a 1/2 spin and it is also part of the fermion statistic family, also known as the rules determining Fermi-Dirac Statistics. Infinities however always imply one-more-from-now. Atleast, in the mathematical sense, 1 always means 2, always means 3 in Cantors description.

But the infinities we deal with make a mockery of quantum mechanics. They don't contain boundaries, the wave function is without structure and without direction. Every parameter, those being space, time and matter and even energy if any of those has a description at big bang, take up negative infinite energy values - space expands infinitely and negatively as such will matter and energy, if either indeed exists.

If we come to infinite values, we must suspect there is no information we can susbtaintially obtain from observing such a system, unless you were to view it from the outside. Now, a God solves this problem; atleast some superintelligence that is sitting at the end of the universe and has managed to watch the last few chronon's of the universes existence, or someone, maybe also some superintelligence has managed to sit outside the universe and observe it from the outside.

There is also a third contribution here; the idea quantum mechanics plays the entire role. That is, that the infinite values at the beginning of time where actually so very defined, infinite values collapsed. Such a theory is called the Bohmian Interpetation. The idea that infinite values did not show up when the wave function dictated the universe: It was essentially the idea that the wave function had already collapsed at the big bang and out spat was our universe.

This is a very noval approach. It keeps very close to quantum mechanical predictions, it also produces a solution where possibly an infinite amount of universes could have appeared from. The entire of reality was in fact predetermined somehow, maybe even by a non-time directionality about the universe; this is the idea that maybe there is no preferred direction in the universe (giving shadow over the postulate that an arrow of time exists), that waves from both the future and the past interact simultaneously in what is called a ''Transaction'', created by John Cramer dubbed the Transactional Interpretation. This interpetation has a lot to answer for the world of infinities.

[Æthelwulf]

I was a bit crypic at the beginning here.

The reason why I was angry about me positing the existence of particles with a non-zero dimensionality is because when you really work out the dimensions of particles, electrons have infinite energy when you make them pointlike. When R=0 your energy infinity.

I will write the equations out which determine the classical radius and what happens when you reach that limit in a moment. The point was that if today we infinities lurking behind particles which exibit behaviour as fundamental particles, then something seems awry, as it was put recently. I'd say quantum mechanics has settled with the easiest solution for particles physics and have ended up with one of the worst messes it could entertain today, even with our best theories, it seems, none of them are even close to a unififed understanding. It seems something fundamentally is wrong with our picture of the subatomic world and maybe even the cosmological since both are to be unified.

[Æthelwulf]

I was a bit crypic at the beginning here.

The reason why I was angry about me positing the existence of particles with a non-zero dimensionality is because when you really work out the dimensions of particles, electrons have infinite energy when you make them pointlike. When R=0 your energy infinity.

I will write the equations out which determine the classical radius and what happens when you reach that limit in a moment. The point was that if today we infinities lurking behind particles which exibit behaviour as fundamental particles, then something seems awry, as it was put recently. I'd say quantum mechanics has settled with the easiest solution for particles physics and have ended up with one of the worst messes it could entertain today, even with our best theories, it seems, none of them are even close to a unififed understanding. It seems something fundamentally is wrong with our picture of the subatomic world and maybe even the cosmological since both are to be unified.

So I said I would write out the equation(s). I meant only the one, but it says a lot about fundamental particles we deal with today.



And for a point charge with R=0, the energy must posit infinite values. The physical mass therego, of an everyday electron, even pervading your brain should have infinite energies, but it does not.

Some like the idea of something called renormalization. Some feel however this approach is more like a patchwork for something which has a real solution. I agree with this, afterall, what good does the equations that permit ridiculous situations for particles, to then further admit some kind of physical reality. We should accept straight away something has been presented wrong at the presence of infinite energies at zero-dimensions for particles - for many years, many people have been commenting at the possibility of infinite energies at the big bang as an evidence that maybe something else happened? But what are we stuck on, this question of infinities and whether they really exist.

[MikeS]

We have established that holding our Galaxy together is a vast amount of Dark-matter. 

No, I don't think it has been established as there is no proof.  It has been suggested as a means of solving a problem that has another (to my mind far simpler and therefore more likely) solution.

[Æthelwulf]

We have established that holding our Galaxy together is a vast amount of Dark-matter. 

No, I don't think it has been established as there is no proof.  It has been suggested as a means of solving a problem that has another (to my mind far simpler and therefore more likely) solution.

Agreed. Some physicists still have problems realizing what has been proven and what is speculation.

A scientist I hold in high regard is Michio Kaku, but on many occasions I have heard him say, ''we know something energetic is pervaiding the universe...'' blah blah blah.

No we don't. If anything, we have evidence. We don't know such an energy force exists. How do we know for instance, that GR is simply breaking down on extreme levels? In fact, how do we know that some other mechanism is to be the reason for measuring what seems like a superfluous amount of energy in our universe? Damn, even black holes combined with many other anomalous gravitational effects may add up.

*shrugs shoulders*

[Dharmansh]

Some Black holes are form with the help of two Dwarf planet right?But what happens to dwarf are they fused into one Because of the gravity?

[Airthumbs (OP)]

We have established that holding our Galaxy together is a vast amount of Dark-matter. 

No, I don't think it has been established as there is no proof.  It has been suggested as a means of solving a problem that has another (to my mind far simpler and therefore more likely) solution.

Are you prepared to make a hypothesis on what that might be?  I only ask because it sounds like you might have an alternative solution in mind... 

[MikeS]

We have established that holding our Galaxy together is a vast amount of Dark-matter. 

No, I don't think it has been established as there is no proof.  It has been suggested as a means of solving a problem that has another (to my mind far simpler and therefore more likely) solution.

Are you prepared to make a hypothesis on what that might be?  I only ask because it sounds like you might have an alternative solution in mind... 

Airthumbs

What we tend to forget is galaxies are large, very large.  When viewed face on what we see is not happening in one frame of reference (other than our own) but many.  What we 'see' is a compilation made up of light emitted from many different time dilated points across the radius of the galaxy.

Please see.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=385040;topic=43717.0;last_msg=385040