It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could Black Holes and Hawking Radiation be the answer?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I recently read a couple of brief but interesting posts on the excellent "One Universe At A Time" blog by Brian Koberlein. It can be found here. One Universe At A Time
One of them discussed the possibility that Primordial Black Holes could be the answer to the mystery of Dark Matter. I don't want to repeat the entire post here, because he makes his point well enough, but I will touch on the basics.
The recent detection by the LIGO facilities of gravitational waves produced by 2 merging singularities, each 30 solar masses, has brought the topic of Primordial Black Holes to the minds of some in the astrophysics community again. This is because our current models of how black holes form in the Universe don't normally produce them at this mass. They are possible in the Primordial Black Hole theory, at greater frequency. If PBHs do exist in the theorized quantities, they could explain the gravitational attraction of Dark Matter without the need for new particles that defy all of our attempts to observe or create. Here's the post. Could Primordial Black Holes Solve The Dark Matter Mystery

I'll readily admit that my grasp of Relativity, Quantum Physics and Astrophysics is not as thorough as a professional physicist, but this got me to thinking.

First, a few explanations:
Primordial Black Holes are singularities formed not by stellar core collapse, but in the extreme density of matter in the first few moments of the Universe. Varying theories predict that they could have masses with averages from that of asteroids to around 30 solar masses. Much like the merging pair LIGO detected. Though, the theory that they could be responsible for Dark Matter is not necessarily new, this thought brought forth a couple of ideas for me.

Like all black holes, the Primordial Black Holes evaporate via Hawking Radiation, at a rate inversely proportionate to their mass. In simpler terms, the lower the mass, the faster the rate of evaporation. This means that the smallest of these to form in the infant Universe have already evaporated, but one with the mass of the Sun would still remain today.
The largest singularities, like those found in galactic centers, will likely be around well after entropy has lead to the heat death of everything else around them. Some, in the range of billions of solar masses, may even see the decay any remaining protons. While there are lower limits to the mass of a singularity that can form from the gravitational collapse of a star, there is basically none to what could have formed in the beginning of Spacetime. Nor is there any discernable limit to how massive one can grow, other than the basic amount of available matter and energy it's gravitational influence can pull in. Although, I don't know if Dark Matter is also consumed in the same manner as the regular variety we are used to, but theoretically the entire mass of the Universe could be contained in one singularity. And indeed, Big Bang theory presumes that is was prior to being released into existence as we understand it.

But enough about Dark Matter for now. There are a few other things I want to ponder. Hawking Radiation is though to occur when fluctuations in quantum background energy at the event horizon of a singularity create virtual particle/antiparticle pairs to come into existence. Some of these pairs get 'boosted' by the singularity's gravity into real particles. If one of these particles falls into the horizon, but the other escapes, it results in a net loss of energy and mass from the singularity.

Now, what if, once it passes out of the vicinity of the singularity, the escaped particle reverts to it's previous state of non-existence and returns to the Quantum Energy Background? And if this happens with billions of singularities throughout the universe, could the net gain of energy to the quantum background of the Universe be fuelling the expansion of spacetime? And, since smaller singularities evaporate faster, and without an equal or greater amount of incoming matter and energy to achieve equilibrium with evaporation, the rate of evaporation would accelerate over time, could this not explain the observed acceleration of the expansion of spacetime as well?




posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
If PBHs do exist in the theorized quantities, they could explain the gravitational attraction of Dark Matter without the need for new particles that defy all of our attempts to observe or create.
They haven't been ruled out but they are no more likely than wimps, probably not as likely, since most likely masses of PBH have been more or less ruled out by observation, but not all.


theoretically the entire mass of the Universe could be contained in one singularity.
Before 1998 that seemed like a theoretical future possibility, but after 1998 with the discovery of dark energy, it doesn't, it's only a big bang idea. It is reasonable to presume that the supermassive black hole in each galaxy may dominate the galaxy's mass at some very distant future date, and probably mergers of these in local groups of galaxies will happen, but some are already too far apart to merge and are receding faster than the speed of light, and accelerating. I know of no modern theory which would allow such to merge, ever.


Now, what if, once it passes out of the vicinity of the singularity, the escaped particle reverts to it's previous state of non-existence and returns to the Quantum Energy Background? And if this happens with billions of singularities throughout the universe, could the net gain of energy to the quantum background of the Universe be fuelling the expansion of spacetime? And, since smaller singularities evaporate faster, and without an equal or greater amount of incoming matter and energy to achieve equilibrium with evaporation, the rate of evaporation would accelerate over time, could this not explain the observed acceleration of the expansion of spacetime as well?
We have made searches for the signatures of evaporating black holes and the searches concluded there can't be very many, so I think we need to look for another explanation for dark energy.

In the vastly distant future black holes will dominate, then eventually the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) will cool enough to allow them to evaporate, but the CMB is too hot for that now. The black hole needs to have less mass than the moon to evaporate at current CMB temperatures.

edit on 201672 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I know there are a couple of obvious contradictions in this theory, at least on the surface. Dark Energy and Dark Matter far exceed the amount of 'ordinary' matter and energy we can observe and interact with. But a singularity doesn't care about the nature of the matter it absorbs. The Standard Model gives no explanation for the amount of 'ordinary' matter in the Universe. In fact, in theory, matter and antimatter should have been created in equal amounts at the beginning of the Universe. Since we have only recently been able to create usable amounts of antihelium, we have no idea whether it reacts to gravity the same way matter does. There's no reason to think it doesn't, but also no evidence that it has to. Perhaps it is even more prone to accretion than normal matter, and in the Primordial Universe, the majority of it condensed into Primordial Black Holes, with the rest annihilating with matter
Could explain both why there is so much matter left if they were created in equal amounts and also why Dark Matter is so much more prevalent than matter. Once the initial singularities formed, they absorbed matter and antimatter indiscriminately, and it all adds to the mass. But if antimatter is more prone to condensing in Primordial conditions, more of it would have been consumed before the initial Expansion lowered the density of the Universe below the threshold for singularities to form. Some of the larger ones would continue absorbing matter, but I imagine a great deal of them would find themselves in a position of disproportionately fast evaporation to available absorption and have evaporated. In fact, I would think more mass has been lost through evaporation and conversion to Dark Energy than still exists. If this theory of Hawking Radiation and Dark Energy is even vaguely viable, of course.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I get that expansion would prevent all matter in the Universe from ever being able to be absorbed into one singularity, but I was merely commenting that one singularity could contain it.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The evaporation signalso we were searching for were Gamma Ray Bursts at the very end of the singularity's existence. To my knowledge, there has been no search for the Hawking Radiation itself, due to the fact that it is such a small amount for any singularity we would be able to detect. It could also be that any singularities small enough to have completely evaporated by now have long since done so, but the remaining ones are either in basic equilibrium from absorption of background radiation from various sources, or are just getting to the point where they are getting out of equilibrium.
So, what is the cutoff before an evaporating singularity ends in a GRB? How much mass is converted into that final outburst? Perhaps it is lower amount than we theorize, and the output is just not great enough to detect.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

As to your point about the temperature of the CMB being to 'warm' to prevent anything in the Universe from occurring, it's certainly correct, but potentially counterintuitive to many. Since it is just a few kelvin above 0, it would seem like it lacks the energy to sustain anything. But while we can observe the violent and almost fantastical energies of matter in an accretion disc, the singularity inside the event horizon is actually extremely cold. A singularity of just one solar mass would have a temperature of about 60 NANOkelvin. And the more massive it gets, the lower the temperature becomes. With a mass equivalent to that of the Moon, the amount of energy it radiates would be in equilibrium with the energy it absorbs from the CMB and other sources, even if there is no matter available to it. Except possibly the Cosmic Neutrino Background.
What would the mass have to be to sustain equilibrium with only the Cosmic Neutrino Background as an incoming source, I wonder? What is the energy density of the Neutrino Background in deep intergalactic space?



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy


Could Black Holes and Hawking Radiation be the answer?

No! Black Holes of all kinds primordial and what not, or Hawking Radiation, or Singularities, or Dark Matter, or even Dark Energy, all of those are all questions, not answers, what you propose is just silly.

Oh! And the answer is off course 42. Some say its 32 and others say 13, while even others say it's 1 or that it could be actually be 0, and yet others say its 8, and then off course there are those that say the true answer is 32,131,08.

But again there all wrong, because the answer to everything and all questions, most especially questions regarding spacetime is 42.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Touché



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Hawking has already admitted that his theory is flawed concerning the event horizon of so called black holes.

An Indian physicist was literally robbed of everything after he challenged Hawking.

Hawking ended up eventually admitting that black holes aren't exactly what they've been saying after all the damage was done to this other brilliant scientist.

In short, there is no such thing as an event horizon.

Why this isn't more common knowledge in the lay physics community is an intriguing question.

Black holes are simply more massive objects than stars, but they are not singularities in the way that we currently think of them. At least, not most of them. Black hole may be a blanket term for any unified object higher than a star in the universal body heirarchy. There may be something else, but until old news is considered just that, focus on better things will be lacking.

They're not actually black holes at all. The more you take away from it, the smaller it gets, not bigger. Not a hole.

edit on 7/3/2016 by TarzanBeta because: If of who cares?

edit on 7/3/2016 by TarzanBeta because: What is consistered?



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta

There is a point, which is commonly understood to be the event horizon, past which the gravitational force of the singularity is too strong for even light to escape. What Hawking is talking about in his recent revision of the theory is the nature of that region, the information paradox and the 'no-hair' theorem.
The traditional theoretical model held that certain information about any particle crossing the event horizon was forever lost to the rest of the Universe, such as spin, flavor, etc. The only 3 properties of the matter of a singularity are mass, angular momentum and electric charge. This loss of information about the constituent particles violates certain fundamental rules of quantum physics.
Also, his revision eliminated the radiation 'firewall' originally thought to lay behind the event horizon which was part of the mechanism that shreds in falling matter and destroys this information.
The point at which a particle would require a velocity equal to or greater than C to escape from the singularity's gravity is still a real thing, and for the purpose of my discussion, it is the event horizon



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta

And yes, the term 'black hole' is a misnomer. Fairly sure that most people are aware of that. But attempting to categorize them as just a step up from stars is equally misleading. We can see the effects of their immense gravity on the matter around them, and for that amount of mass to be contained in such a small volume requires a matter density that is not comparable to anything else in the known Universe. Even neutron stars are considerably less dense. So, too, would be the theoretical quark star.
edit on 3-7-2016 by pfishy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: pfishy
Are you saying black holes are french by nature. That's so risqué. Your theory that is.

Now how many here have actually been within 1million miles of one of these black holes? Dont all raise your hands at once now! We need to send somebody up there to get some video footage of this stuff. Then we can put it on youtube. Till then. Its all just so passé.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

Stars are not planets. Planets are not moons. Moons are not asteroids. Etc. If you want to say they're not comparable, that's fine with me. Stars aren't black holes. If they were, they wouldn't be stars.

And you went through a lot of effort to say a lot and still retain the event horizon, though you dispelled it by your admission of what happens (rather what doesn't happen, to even light, though you neglected that when it's considered false) to objects in proximity to the greater object.

In the same model, light is not a particle, but rather a wave whose carrier is the proton. Are you trying to say that non physical objects are drawn to the physical object via gravity?

Or do you consider that photons are not particles riding a wave, but rather they are birds in a flock, revealing the wave?

Either there is no event horizon or light is an object with mass.

Mass cannot attract no mass without contact with another mass with which no mass interacts.

ETA a better word here would be "conduct".

edit on 7/3/2016 by TarzanBeta because: What of it?



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

Now, what if, once it passes out of the vicinity of the singularity, the escaped particle reverts to it's previous state of non-existence and returns to the Quantum Energy Background

[hawking computervoice]

This would violate the first law of thermodynamica.
Also the particle that escapes is a real particle. You don't dissapear I don't dissapear and certainly other real particles don't dissapear too.


[/hawking computervoice]



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: frenchfries

I like your style, my beloved American quintessential burger side dish best served with a tomato inspired, sugar infused, vinegar sauce.

See what I did there?

I spoke like a physicist. Or a chef. Hard to tell the difference these days.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta

I like your style, my beloved American quintessential burger side dish best served with a tomato inspired, sugar infused, vinegar sauce.

Ah you making me hungry ... eh what if I ate myself and would disappear? problem solved ?
Beh... I rather would fall into a black hole stuck at the event horizon forever.

Anyway good post Carry on.
edit on 732016 by frenchfries because: blackker hole added ... has more mass=more fun



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Dark matter is mostly shadow matter - the E8-singlet state predicted by E8xE8' heterotic superstring theory. It is therefore invisible, not emitting or absorbing light because its particles carry no electric charges. Dark matter is confined to a 10-d space-time sheet separated by a small segment extending along the tenth dimension of 11-d space-time predicted by M-theory. The width of this gap determines the strength of Newtonian gravity in 4-d Minkowski space-time. Ordinary matter and dark matter share nine dimensions of space. But only gravitational waves (now discovered) can cross the gap. Dark and ordinary matter can never occupy exactly the same space because they are confined to their own 10-d space-time sheets (branes). These are embedded in the 26-d space-time predicted by quantum mechanics for spinless strings without supersymmetry. The latter arises as a symmetry of the higher, 15-d space.
Black holes are mathematical artifacts of Einstein's general relativity, which assumed that the affine connection is symmetric. By relaxing this condition by introducing a space-time with torsion as well as curvature, the mathematical assumptions made by Penrose and Hawking about the energy-momentum tensor in order to prove the inevitability of singularities are no longer valid. This means that black hole singularities no longer have to exist in the most general case of an asymmetric gravitational field. What astronomers interpret as black holes are merely very dense objects whose gravitational collapse has been stabilised by the repulsive spin-spin interaction (ultimately due to the fermion quarks and electrons in atoms) that are predicted for such generalised Einstein-Cartan space-times. All the paradoxes that stem from trying to reconcile quantum theory with the loss of classical information inside the event horizon predicted by general relativity are false issues created by a theory that made (for the sake of simplicity) assumptions that do not hold in the real universe. Hawking's attempt to salvage his earlier work simply does not cut it and his latest solution fails to convince a large fraction of the research community, leaving the subject in a crisis of its own making! It will continue as long as no independent experimental evidence appears showing the need to drop the simplifying assumption of symmetric, gravitational affine connections.

Shadow matter has a long-range force field that is the counterpart of the electromagnetic force operating between E8'-singlet superstrings. Dark energy is the energy of this invisible field. Although it does not interact with superstrings of ordinary matter, its gravitational field does - only it generates a repulsive, not an attractive, force, on ordinary matter. The expansion of the universe is accelerating because it is being driven by the repulsive gravitational force between ordinary matter and shadow matter.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

Well, someone is closer to understanding here. That's good. I'd think about all your d's, though. Math is an abstract, attempting to predict reality, not creating it. Dimensions are discovered merely at varying levels of magnitude. Time is not a dimension, it's the result of equation distance divided by velocity = time. It's a calculation, or more accurately the description of an event, but it's not a dimension because it doesn't have physical magnitude. If it was a dimension, I couldn't alter it by simply accelerating and decelerating.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The evaporation signalso we were searching for were Gamma Ray Bursts at the very end of the singularity's existence. To my knowledge, there has been no search for the Hawking Radiation itself, due to the fact that it is such a small amount for any singularity we would be able to detect. It could also be that any singularities small enough to have completely evaporated by now have long since done so, but the remaining ones are either in basic equilibrium from absorption of background radiation from various sources, or are just getting to the point where they are getting out of equilibrium.
So, what is the cutoff before an evaporating singularity ends in a GRB? How much mass is converted into that final outburst? Perhaps it is lower amount than we theorize, and the output is just not great enough to detect.
If the mass is less than the moon's mass it can evaporate, and if it's evaporating it's not going to last forever, so the fact we're not seeing the GRBs tells us that if there are black holes evaporating out there, there can't be very many of them and not enough of the evaporating type to account for all dark matter.

For the black holes that aren't ending their lives in gamma ray bursts, you can search for those by their gravitational lensing. I made a post about that data here, which revers to observations with Kepler but there have been many other gravitational microlensing papers ruling out masses larger than about half the mass of the Earth, so the mass range of PBHs that could exist is getting smaller and smaller but as that source says there are some possibilities left in the very tiny mass range, less than 0.0001 percent the mass of Earth's moon.


originally posted by: TarzanBeta
In short, there is no such thing as an event horizon.

Why this isn't more common knowledge in the lay physics community is an intriguing question.
I don't know what you mean by "lay physics community" but professional physicists are divided on the merits of Hawking's latest papers which change the nature of the event horizon but they don't imply that


Black hole may be a blanket term for any unified object higher than a star in the universal body heirarchy
because neutron stars can form with masses of something like 1.4 to maybe 2.5 or so stellar masses and they aren't considered black holes. We think we know the lower mass limit for neutron stars, but we don't really know the upper mass limit, though observations inferring black holes with masses of 3 or so stellar masses suggest neutron stars may not get much bigger than that.

Here's an article about how Hawking's latest work is received by professionals:
Hawking’s latest black-hole paper splits physicists


Some welcome his latest report as a fresh way to solve a black-hole conundrum; others are unsure of its merits...
One problem is it's not a complete explanation which the authors admit:


the work is incomplete. Abhay Ashtekar, who studies gravitation at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, says that he finds the way that the authors transfer the information to the black hole — which they call ‘soft hair’ — unconvincing. And the authors acknowledge that they do not yet know how the information would subsequently transfer to the Hawking radiation, a further necessary step.
Until we have a workable theory of quantum gravity, confirmed by observation, there's going to be some uncertainty on the exact nature of black holes. I don't think physicists widely expect such a theory to contain a singularity, but exactly what it will contain instead, we don't really know, except perhaps that it still has to be more dense than a neutron star and since that's probably the densest form of baryonic matter, the black hole can't be made of baryons as we know them.

edit on 201673 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I like everything you said except for the very last line, which I would change to "might not be" instead of "can't".

It is my opinion that we'll learn that these objects are super massive planetary objects that appear dark because they don't give off light and they're too far away to see a reflection of light if even a star was near enough to light it. For example, we wouldn't be able to visibly see a gigantic ball of iron without a sun, oh but we would notice its gravitational effects.

Now what would we witness if two giant orbs of iron with the mass of multiple stars collided with eachother at galactic velocities?

Yeah, we could detect those waves.

Iron is merely an example in this case.

These dark objects are made of matter, or else there is no gravity.

For a visual, imagine looking at a treeline or a mountain at 11pm. The sky has color, but the mountain is like an ominous void, preventing even the darkness behind it from seeming dark, but only seeming as a deeper void in the sky; and yet, it is the, and it is close, and it is solid, and it cuts the wind, and light moves around its edges. Things falling down the mountain accelerate, but things going up it crawl to the summit. Some of these are volcanic, and the lava blows through the summit, going into sky and filling it with its terrible and angry splendor.

It isn't that light doesn't escape. It simply doesn't give light until it's mouth opens, revealing its heart, for there isn't a light close enough or strong enough to light it.

Go to a place many miles away from a mountain. In the dark, use the strongest bulb you can find. Take a picture and tell me if the mountain is lit.

Of course, it isn't, not enough to notice anything. It's as if the light was absorbed and not reflected. But we know that's not true. It's simply the inverse square law being witnessed. There just wasn't enough to detect in any significant amount.

Now leave your light and go to the dark mountain and look at your light. The bright little speck is there!

So the light DOES reach the mountain. But how will a light the size of a needlepoint, though only because of distance, reveal anything?

Now also see this.

As you travel the flat towards the mountain, the light quickly shrinks in size. But getting to the base of the mountain not the entire trip, even if it's a large portion of it. To climb the mountain is to greatly add to the travel distance and time. And yet, the light doesn't shrink hardly at all during this part of the trip. It seems like it should, because travel still occurred. The mountain seems to be affecting time itself! Except, no. It is simply that some of the trip is up hill, towards perpendicular to the light source. Now go to the summit and then instead of traveling back towards the light, walk gown the other side of the dark mountain. If you keep going, to an observer at the light, who knew you went to the mountain, and signaled that you were there, even if you keep signaling, that observer at the light will not see and may assume the mountain simply absorbed you. The observer at the light has no way of catching up to find you. You're too far away and the mountain hides you, but you return to the flat land eventually.

In this vision, there is no need for anything besides what is quite obvious.

If researchers would apply this kind of sense to their data, they might not be so completely confused.

Math is to a physicist as a steak on a stick hung from his head in front of his face is to a greyhound.

Running headlong into a tree will produce a better result.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join