0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I am an advocator of the theory to be the final destruction of the universe when value reach critical point w<1. In response to your question, it will almost certainly cause a catastrophic depletion of energy in all four corners of the universe, that means, nothing will survive this tremendous rip. Where the energy goes is up for speculation. Chances are is that the energy will tunnel into another universe which is just beginning in its ground state.
Disclaimer: I'm just speculating there, since its outside my field. There's the question of what exactly the singularity in a black hole is. A lot of folks think the idea of the singularity is a sign that the theory of general relativity breaks down at the small scales, and that a more complete quantum gravity theory would help with that and maybe not have infinite density. If it's a quantum object with some size, then maybe it could be ripped apart? Also, black holes should give off energy from Hawking radiation. The energy they give off will get ripped away from them in this scenario, so you would expect black holes to evaporate from loss of energy (and therefore mass) alone, even if they didn't get "ripped" themselves.
The problem we have with singularities is that no one knows for sure what is going on at an event horizon or beyond. Hawking radiation is still a theory. Any discussion we have about black holes is just a discussion, we have no way of proving anything. E = MC^2 says that matter is pure energy (radiation). I think that matter gets torn into radiation at the event horizon and that radiation continues to propagate toward the center of the hole with the wavelength getting short as it does. Therefore a black hole could store an infinite amount of energy.
The rate of evaporation of a BH is dependent upon its temperature, which is inversely dependent upon its size; the smaller a BH is, the hotter it is. Relativity too, showed us that what may seem to be intuitively ridiculous doesn't mean that it's impossible.I think it needs to be remembered that any theory of space-time that limits it to being exclusively four-dimensional is setting that limit arbitrarily. While it's difficult to conceive of lower and higher order space-time geometries, there's no intrinsic reason why they shouldn't exist; relationships between any number of dimensions seem to be pretty straightforward and it's not difficult to work with them. Indeed, all of the Superstring theories require > four-dimensional space-time.Therefore, if we accept that there is no fundamental limit to the number of dimensions of space-time, we should also accept that objects that exist within that space-time need not just be three dimensional, for in a > four-dimensional Superstring space-time environment every three-dimensional body that exists in our apparent four-dimensional space-time must have either zero-size in the extra dimensions, or that their size is 'curled up' to quantum sizes, and would seem to be of quantum density in those dimensions.The Occam's Razor solution is that objects need not have a non-zero size in every dimension. Personally, I think that the family of massless particles may be an indicator of objects in our four-dimensional space-time that have less than three spatial dimensions e.g. light may only be two-dimensional, and that what is at the center of a Black Hole may actually be a zero-sized point.
And your point is?
The only way you could have a black hole not to radiate, is either that the black hole is of the size of an electron...
I don't think that anything can rip apart a black hole, and ah, they must exist or Einstein was wrong. And I think he was right Black holes are no longer a part of our universe, that's what the event horizon (EV) states. As for Hawking and that energy he expects to be produced it's created by 'virtual photons' created by the energy contained at the EV where the created pair gets 'split up'. It does not state that this contain any information from the black hole as far as I know? All things we observe is a relation, as they say, there is needed to be two for something to happen, but when it comes to black holes the energy we see I belive to be in SpaceTime's effort to close its 'holes' and we have to differ between what's inside and outside a BH.
Well, its very good to have our own idea's and i always encourage them.