Of Black Holes and Big Bangs

reply to post by Shake

Oh really?
Scientists Use Light to Create Particles

trailblazing experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in California has confirmed a longstanding prediction by theorists that light beams colliding with each other can goad the empty vacuum into creating something out of nothing.

Or
MIT Physicists Create New Form of Matter.

The first is dated 1997, and the second 2005. I imagine they have improved these techniques even further by now.

this is my link on chakras norway spiral and black holes. just a thoery so dont be to critical! www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ShadowLink
reply to post by Shake

 

Oh really?
Scientists Use Light to Create Particles

trailblazing experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in California has confirmed a longstanding prediction by theorists that light beams colliding with each other can goad the empty vacuum into creating something out of nothing.

Or
MIT Physicists Create New Form of Matter.

The first is dated 1997, and the second 2005. I imagine they have improved these techniques even further by now.

but they have to use energy to create the matter so essentially they are just turning energy into matter

My point is if there is a black hole at the center of every galaxy or even half of them, wouldnt all the matter in the universe ultimately be doomed to be absorbed by them over a long enough time period?

The black holes at the center of galaxies are not the normal boring black holes, but the supermassive variety. they suck in matter, yes, but in doing so, they cause this matter to speed up and heat up, a lot. when this happens, matter is ejected from our side of the event horizon. this is a quasar. when the matter/energy is ejected, it pushes other matter away from the black hole, depriving it of food. the very act of an SMBH feeding pushes its own food supply away from the event horizon the black hole at the center of the galaxy is not urrently feeding, but it has stars orbiting it, very fast.

In a singular non infinite universe could the big bang have been an ultimate black hole that had absorbed everything in the universe and exploded? If that were true then could the big bang have been one of many in an infinite loop of matter being compacted and expanded over massive time periods?

maybe, but probably not, one of the four cosmological assumptions states that there can be no center, edge, or any specific point of the universe. a black hole that sucked everything out and started everything would be a special point and theoretically can not exist.

Or is our universe one that simply started with a big bang and will end with every galaxy eventually being absorbed by its own black hole?

the expansion of the universe is increasing in speed, so, assuming a flat or open-shaped universe, the most likey possibility is that eventually, because of the expansion, that all galaxies will be so isolated from each other and fading out into blackness. but this could happen if the universe is a closed shape, but scientists havent seen evidence of any of these three possibilies of the shape of the universe.

But the leading theory i think is that the big bang was a collision of branes.

that is the the leading theory now, yes, and a new big bang could happen tomorrow, next year, a million years from now, never... we dont know

but what determines the size of a black hole? are they variable? we know black holes have immense gravity, correct? so, i would think they do "draw in" matter. does this make them larger and therefore, increase their gravity ... and their draw?

Black holes are formed after a huge star goes supernova. the more massive the star, the bigger the black hole, the bigger the black hole, the bigger gravity well. when a black hole feeds, it should get bigger.

IMHO the Solar Dynamics Observatory was recently sent into orbit to take measurements of the black hole at the centre of our sun. its infinitesimally small, but starting to make an obvious impact on the sun(the suns outer magnetic field flipped in january, but we dont yet know whats going on in the core(s) of the sun).

The sun's magnetic polarity flipping is really nothing special. it does it every 11 years. its part of the solar magnetic cycle. the solar magnetic sphere is so effed up because the poles and equartor of the sun rotate at different rates and convection on the surface of the sun causes even more tangling of the megnetic field. cos of this, we have sunspots, solar prominences, spicules, and the occasional coronal mass ejections. by the way, where did you see that there's a black hole in the middle of the sun?

Where are all the white holes?

good question, but it's a very big universe with lots of mystery remaining to be discovered.

It also just occurred to me, that if black holes suck matter in, and are in essence gravity wells, then would white holes actually be radiating gravity? That makes me think about a thing I read online awhile back, where this gal said something about a theory that our universe bleeds gravity to a parallel universe.

i think white holes would spew matter and energy more than gravity, but the byproduct is mass and energy would be gravity... as for bleeding gravity, it boils down to gravitons, one of the messanger particles for the 4 cosmic forces. it's the only one that hasn't been discovered. so scientists speculate that gravitons bleed into different universes diluting the effect of gravity. you van see how weak the force of gravity in one simple experiment: go over to a table and pick something up. you just beat the fore of gravity!

if you all think i'm nuts because im not providing links as evidence, i'm getting this info out of the notes i took in my astronomy class in college. but noone is wrong, because frankly, noone's right with all we know, stuck here on our widdle planet. but i do appreciate the friendly debate about the universe. this board lacks a lot of that

[edit on 5/3/2010 by Paladin327]

[edit on 5/3/2010 by Paladin327]

great discussion.

Black holes do absorb matter that is close to them yes, but they also spew a lot of matter out as well.

As a black hole feeds and feeds, it get larger it has less gravitational power and spins slower. Eventually it will dissipate, giving it a finite life span as well. It suffers from gluttony and fills itself to the point where it ceases to exist.

Black holes send a lot of energy out of them in the form of radiation it is known as hawking radiation, for, you guessed it, Hawking himself.

We have yet to see a black hole finish it's life cycle and for all we know it could become a pulsar or could just pinch off.

Let's assume that the Milky Way is half the life of the universe, 7 billion years old. Sounds fair and underestimated as Earth itself is 4.6 billion years old. If every galaxy is orbiting a black hole and we are still in the suburbs 7+ billion years later, than you don't have to be worried about black holes eating us, it will be such a long time away (if it happens) that we could not even fathom the numbers.

I will try and write more tomorrow when I have had some sleep. It's 4 am here.

Pred...


[edit on 6-3-2010 by predator0187]

reply to post by 7minds


I do not mean to sound rude at all, but they graviton is still hypothetical. It has yet to be proven true.

en.wikipedia.org...

If we had found it, it would be a huge breakthrough. If you know something I don't then I am all ears.

Pred...

Im sure i read a theory that this is EXACTLY what happens in cycles of big bangs.

All of the energy in the universe is eventually "sucked" into black holes they then converge on each other into a singularity and the "pressure" from all of the energy in this singularity bursts out again creating another universe.

reply to post by wellsybelieves


not hat we can prove it or anything

i think that possibly people just assume black holes are literal holes when they might just be a super dense object with a massive gravitational field. Also if light cant escape the force of black holes then wouldnt you technically be traveling faster than the speed of light when u get too close, or at least light would be traveling faster than the speed of light.

The other thing people have to remember is that stephen hawkings theories of black holes arent any more valid than ours. He just gets support from other cosmologists because he is so respected and his theories seem to debunk the idea of a black hole being created from the LHC.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by Shake]

Originally posted by predator0187
reply to post by 7minds

 

I do not mean to sound rude at all, but they graviton is still hypothetical. It has yet to be proven true.

en.wikipedia.org...

If we had found it, it would be a huge breakthrough. If you know something I don't then I am all ears.

Pred...

www.planet-lotb.com...

Originally measured in 2006 by the ESA. They went over it for 3 years, checked their findings for 8 months, and released that statement.

I know its not 100%. But really, we just found out that space wasn't empty last year. It took us over 50 years in space to figure out that there are evenly distributed hydrogen molecules throughout our solar system.

I never really understood the whole concept of black holes, the part of them being holes that is. If a supermasive suns become unstable and compress into black holes how are they holes they can be just another element in the universe one element that is more heavy then anything we can judge with our main tool 'light', sort of like Neutron stars. How exactly are they holes then, only in the sense that we cant see the bottom, or actual holes in space. This problem seems to come from our limeted view of gravity, I cant think of one theory that has a clear understanding of what gravity really is, we all know that the more massive an object is the heavyer it is, but how does this explain black holes, or even Neutron stars, why are some element so much more heavy then others, because of there atomic composition or something all together different. What exactly is gravity. a ripple in space, a force, a compaction of matter, a electro magnetic event, or is it the smalest partical in our universe, smaller then an atom. What exactly is it I cant think of anything that would make sense in all theory's.

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
I never really understood the whole concept of black holes, the part of them being holes that is. If a supermasive suns become unstable and compress into black holes how are they holes they can be just another element in the universe one element that is more heavy then anything we can judge with our main tool 'light', sort of like Neutron stars. How exactly are they holes then, only in the sense that we cant see the bottom, or actual holes in space. This problem seems to come from our limeted view of gravity, I cant think of one theory that has a clear understanding of what gravity really is, we all know that the more massive an object is the heavyer it is, but how does this explain black holes, or even Neutron stars, why are some element so much more heavy then others, because of there atomic composition or something all together different. What exactly is gravity. a ripple in space, a force, a compaction of matter, a electro magnetic event, or is it the smalest partical in our universe, smaller then an atom. What exactly is it I cant think of anything that would make sense in all theory's.

I will answer your last comments first. We are totally working on that one. It might be awhile. Keep in touch.

As to why they are called "black holes", well thats what you call a metaphor. Kinda like the "desktop" on your computer. Its just there to represent it in a way that is easy to say and remember.

What are blackholes?

In a very simplified nutshell blackholes started out as a function of math that allows for objects to exist that something something gravity to the degree that infinite energy is required to stop the object from further decreasing in volume under its own gravational something.

This object had a large enough amount of mass in a small enough amount of space. This amount of space is the Schwarzschild radius. If an objects Schwarzschild radius is inside itself then it is not dense enough.

From there it was decided that a big enough star had enough mass to for such an object and could possibly collapse into a small enough volume.

Then they did some more math and decided that a these big stars could possibly behave in a way that would compact them enough to occupy the correct volume to form said object and without causing any problems to all the hard work everyone had put in to the current understanding of the cosmos. Mostly everyone has since agreed to go ahead give blackholes the benefit of the doubt.

Since then lots more math has been done to investigate the properties that objects with enough density might possess and the idea of a black hole has become its own area of study. Its really very complicated, infact there are mulitple types allowed to coexist with the current model. Predictions have been made and phenomena has been observed that fits those predictions so the benefit of the doubt has been extended further.

Very far indeed. As I said, the math seems to work and the predictions have been observed so we now generally consider them to be real things that exist.

This is a vaguely correct idea of what blackholes are without using math or flowery descriptions.

What is mass?
Some things are heavier than others because they interact with the Higgs field more that others. Maybe. We don't know but we really hope that pans out. Keep your fingers crossed, it will save us a lot of work if it does.

[edit on 13-3-2010 by garritynet]

[edit on 14-3-2010 by garritynet]

Gravity is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, like a bowling ball on a trampoline. If you roll a tennis ball along the edge it'll orbit the bowling ball and spiral inward. If you drop the tennis ball in a fixed spot it'll move directly towards the bowling ball. Newtonian gravity simply doesn't exist. Straight lines don't exist in nature either. Everything moves along a macroscopic curved surface and it's only from our microscopic perspective that any motion seems straight. Hawking used straight lines instead of pi to make his calculations, and as a result had to invent black holes and later invent the evaporative radiation that bears his name to explain why they don't consume everything. There's a dark star at the center of our galaxy. The universe is static. It has a cosmological constant. And the big bang never happened.

Now that I've insulted every quantum physicist out there I can go to bed.

The Hubble Space Telescope observed that the universe is expanding in all directions equally and at an increasing rate. Supporters of the big band theory uses this as their primary evidence. But does that really make sense? Shouldn't the rate of expansion be slowing down? And shouldn't the center of expansion be the center of the universe (wherever that is)? IMHO, it's more likely local gravitational lensing effects are creating an optical illusion.

en.wikipedia.org...

So its all an experiment in understanding the cosmic reality, it's funny because if you keep looking at all these theory's deep enough some completely contradict eachother, and don't really explain much. It's funny how much ego and social standing is the basis for theory's in scientific communities. It seems like an experiment to bring the physical and metaphysical in to a understandable reality that is pliable. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

From the very beginning of Einstein's theories it was more about academic egos and credentials than scientific facts. People with advanced degrees from prestigious institutions just find it hard to accept that a poor student who went to a poor polytech and couldn't even get a job until finally landing a gig as a lowly clerk could have outsmarted them all. I think that's why so many people to this very day are determined to prove him wrong. They always fail though.

If you consider the Earth creates a small gravitation lens that then looks through a bigger lens created by the solar system which then looks through and even bigger lens created by our galaxy, it makes perfect sense that other galaxies appear to be moving away from us. You don't need a degree from Oxford to reason that out.

I'm pretty sure that humans understand gravitational lensing enough to account for it, but i will give you a chance to explain.

to preface, keep in mind what Albert Einstein said: "If you can not explain something in simple enough terms, then you do not truly understand it"

Assume i know nothing about astronomy. explain how the universe's expansion is an optical illusion in all directions.



[edit on 19/3/2010 by Paladin327]