Black Holes = Begining and End of the Universe?

I was just thinking about this the other day, it supports the big bang theory, which honestly, i'm not too sure about, but hey this is just to get your minds churning.

So if black holes just keep sucking up matter to one very dense point. Eventually wouldn't every black hole have to eat everything, until there is just one black whole left, being one small condensed spot?

Wouldn't that be like the primordial Matter (no scientist, may have just made up that term), that could then explode causing the big bang?

So pretty much, black holes eat everything, they eventually all eat each other, all matter is at one very condensed point. It gets overloaded? Or something crazy happens who knows, it explodes.

Thoughts?

I have always thought much along the same line as you OP. The ultimate recycling theory.

reply to post by doom27


one of the various theories is that blackholes don't last forever, and eventually collapse into nothing, taking all that went into them with it. This could be looked at as the beginning of a new universe.

A black hole, like the super massive one at the center of our galaxy, eventually runs out of fuel and becomes dormant, a silent massive hole waiting for anything to get within reach. Depending on what happens to a blackhole it could very well be the end of the universe, if not painfully slow in action.

A black hole can only suck up what comes close to it, and has sufficient mass to react to gravity. The base particles of our reality, I would think, are safe, larger matter, not so safe. Photons (light) can't even escape the gravity of a black hole.

from what ive seen a blackholes gravity is the same as the collapsed objects gravity. say the sun went supernova and exploded, its black hole would be the same amount of gravitational pull. while they suck up light and all surrounding objects, it doesnt have the effect that you would think a black hole would have in the vacuum of space. for a while i didnt believe in blackholes and thought if there was one, in a vacuum, everything would instantly be sucked into it, but i believe theyve created miniature blackholes in labs that last for a fraction of a second. so im assuming they expire in proportionate time to their size.

I've thought about this a lot, one problem I've seen is something we observe in black holes. I don't know the what they are called, but its the "jets" of energy we see coming from the center of these black holes.

From my understanding, which is limited, in a certain part of the black hole where matter is being ripped apart, this energy is created and is able to escape in these jets we see. Now energy can't be created or destroyed only converted. So it comes from the matter, nuclear forces etc.

So no one black hole can't consume everything because it will always send out a certain percentage in these jets right?

Although it is a fascinating idea, black holes do eventually go away and decay.

So if a black hole has a limited life cycle, what happens to the matter that helped to create the black hole, both the original matter and the mater that was sucked into it have to go somewhere....

Remember the laws, "Energy can not be created nor destroyed." "Matter can not be created nor destroyed."

Exactly that's why they are struggling with it at the quantum level. Yes I believe those jets are radiation, I'm sure I watched a docu with Hawking talking about that.

The thing you've all got to remember is there are endless theories right now. The multiverse theory would allow for a blackhole to take that matter into another (new?) universe, but since both those universes are contained in a bigger system we are yet to comprehend, the information (energy) isn't lost at all.

And we can't say for sure how long a black hole exists they could last forever, or have lifespans like the stars that create them. The fact is, they are out there and part of the system, we just can't really place them yet.

Personally, the multiverse theory seems to fit with what I believe, or would like to, and could explain most paranormal events and even UFOs. The amazing thing about all these theories is that what we know about science today doesn't rule any of them out. Including the hologram on the surface of a blackhole theory.

Once inside a black hole, beyond the Event Horizon, we can only speculatewhat the fate of captured matter is. General relativity tells us that thereare two kinds of black holes; the kind that do not rotate, and the kind that do. Each of these kinds has a different anatomy inside the Event Horizon.For the non-rotating 'Schwarzschild black hole', there is no way for matter to avoid colliding with the Singularity. In terms of the time registered by aclock moving with this matter, it reaches the Singularity within a few micro seconds for a solar-massed black hole, and a few hours for a supermassive black hole. We can't predict what happens at the Singularity because the theory says we reach a condition of infinite gravitational force.For the rotating ' Kerr Black holes', the internal structure is more complex, and for some ingoing trajectories for matter, you could in principle avoid colliding with the Singularity and possibly reemerge from the black holesomewhere else, or at some very different future time thousands or billionsof years after you entered.

www.astronomycafe.net...

Matter that gets pulled into the center, the singularity, we have no idea. Essentially at that point in space time,the laws don't exist. We say this because that's really the only explanation right now, if matter got pulled into the center, eventually the black hole would expand and envelope everything in the universe, as it eats more, it's mass grows, it's gravitational pull grows and the event horizon pushes further out, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Where does religion fit into this theory, does it have provisions for a self recycling universe?

reply to post by mileysubet


I guess religion could fit in when you stop and say, what started the big bang, and what was there before it. Personally I find religion has no place in science as science needs to be objective and observational.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by doom27

 

A black hole can only suck up what comes close to it, and has sufficient mass to react to gravity. The base particles of our reality, I would think, are safe, larger matter, not so safe. Photons (light) can't even escape the gravity of a black hole.

Nothing with any mass is safe from a black hole. Under classical (Newtonian) physics, massless particles would not interact with a gravitational force. But under General Relativity, photons are trapped by the space-time curvature. I'm not really sure what you mean by "base particles" but I can assure you that the "stuff" in our reality that you can touch, feel, and see, is made up of particles that have mass and do interact with gravity. With fundamental particles, mass is measured by the relativistic (Special, this time) energy equivalent, so the nucleons have a mass of about 938MeV, with a proton being about 1 MeV more that a neutron, due to mass differences between up and down quarks. An electron is about .511 MeV. There is still some debate about the mass of the electron neutrino but IMO the evidence is stronger for it having some non-zero rest mass. The lepton all have mass, with the tau lepton coming in at a hefty 1,777 MeV
Although James Joyce wrote "Three quarks for Muster Mark!" there really are six: up, down, top, bottom strange and charm. And colors, too, like red, blue and green. They really aren't colored. It's just that theoretical physicists don't have much imagination. They could have called them Tom, Dick, and Harry, or my favorite possibility, Larry, Mo, and Curly. Anyway, they all have mass, and their anti-quark adjuncts do, too. A pretty good listing of these masses is at en.wikipedia.orgwiki... File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg . The bosons (force mediators) are sometimes referred to as particles, with the photon being massless, tfhe gluon being (for the time being) an imaginary massless construct and the W and Z particles having masses in the 80 to 91 GeV (that's a bunch.)
Work at the LHC, SLAC, and the Tevatron (until they pull the plug) will refine all these numbers

reply to post by doom27


Huh.. intresting. So essentially the Universe is the cesspool, we are the solid bits of waste floating around in it, and the black hole is the drain.

Definitely puts life in perspective...

Originally posted by doom27
So if black holes just keep sucking up matter to one very dense point. Eventually wouldn't every black hole have to eat everything, until there is just one black whole left, being one small condensed spot?

Before the discovery of the "dark energy" phenomenon, something like this was considered to be a possibility, it was called "The big crunch" or the "gnab gib" which is the big bang in reverse.

However, if the 1998 observations are correct and in the 12 years since, nobody has shown otherwise, this isn't going to happen, because matter in the universe is accelerating apart at such a rate that gravity will never be able to suck it all in.

Now, the fate of the universe is expected to be something called "the big freeze" instead of "the big crunch"

THE BIG CRUNCH, THE BIG FREEZE AND THE BIG RIP

Enjoyed peoples opinons so far shows the quality of ats membership in some of the intelligent replies

The way I think it may work is that the energies inside black holes are so intense that they can potentially change the laws of physics. The black hole itself is basically a branch to other dimensions in the way that upon becoming one with the singularity the observer would be inside another dimension which has laws of physics that are relative to the energies contained within the blackhole itself, although the dimenson which said blackhole leads to would vary constantly because of hawking radiation and matter being absorbed into the black hole.

This is what i think black holes are but according to m-theory everything is possible so does it really matter?