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.

 

Are Black Holes Converters?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Hi to all!

Could it possibly be that the black holes are actually converting the matter (visible) into the mysterious dark matter? May be I am sounding stupid, but i just had this thought.
Btw, how much do we know about dark matter today?
Any thoughts appreciated.

Thank you.

- a new member.




posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Very intersting you should say that! Thats exactly what I think they could be. Considering they THINK there might be an extremely large black hole in the center of the galaxy, and an even larger one in the center of the Universe, it could explain why space itsself is mostly dark matter (I forget what the latest percentage of dark to light matter is).

[edit on 7/18/04 by xenophanes85]



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 02:42 AM
link   
If this was true, wouldnt they lose energy (And there fore mass) and then the Schwarzschild radius would get smaller which doesn't happen?



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 02:59 AM
link   
What if dark matter/energy is a fraction of 1% the mass of light matte/energy?

1 unit of light matter = 100000 units dark matter?



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by xenophanes85
What if dark matter/energy is a fraction of 1% the mass of light matte/energy?

1 unit of light matter = 100000 units dark matter?


I found something similar to that too...
"[the universe is] composed of 73 percent dark energy, 23 percent cold dark matter, and only 4 percent atoms" - quote from antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Looking at how dark matter is defined, I think it is more a way of representing our lack of understanding about what gravity really is, rather than something that actually exists.

As for black holes being "converters", they certainly change what they suck in, but what happens afterwards has been a matter of substantial debate. Dr. Steven Hawking may be able to shine some light on their behavior soon, when he presents his latest conclusions.

Again, I am skeptical of the whole dark matter concept. It looks a lot more like a hole in current theory than real matter, a phlogiston for our time.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Isn't dark matter defined as the matter that cannot be directly detected since it does not emit any radiation (nor it reflects any)?

Doesn't that mean that black holes are dark matter? If so, why wouldn't it be possible that black holes are converting visible matter into dark matter?

It's like a bigger vampire (MACHO) biting ordinary people and "converting" them into smaller vampires (WIMPs). Not a good analogy, its funny though



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 04:08 AM
link   
The problem with dark matter stems from the fact that it was conceived as a way to explain observations that disagree with prevailing theory. Rather than accept the possibility that prevailing theory might be either incorrect or incomplete, a whole new form of matter is invented. The very definition of dark matter virtually assures that it cannot be isolated in a laboratory, and wreaks of convenient contrivance, not solid fact.

Current theory has been taking a beating as "new" particles are discovered year after year, a seemingly endless parade of them, each new particle revealing aspects of matter not previously known. As they are discovered, existing theory is patched to attempt to explain them, although it can be convincingly argued that such attempts may be losing steam as evidence mounts that we are discovering new flaws in the current physical model, rather than new particles.

Physics is on the edge of a breakthrough, and we're very close. However, the breakthrough will not be the proof of the existence of "dark matter", but rather the realization that it does not really exist -- at least, not as we understand matter to exist.

Just as the universe is not pased on a decimal number system, it is also not based on our current model of physical phenomena. It's not that it's a bad model, but rather that we are outgrowing it, just as we outgrew Newtonian physics.

But "dark matter" will not lead us there. The answer lies in better understanding the nature of gravity, energy in general and matter that actually exists.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Current theory has been taking a beating as "new" particles are discovered year after year, a seemingly endless parade of them, each new particle revealing aspects of matter not previously known. As they are discovered, existing theory is patched to attempt to explain them, although it can be convincingly argued that such attempts may be losing steam as evidence mounts that we are discovering new flaws in the current physical model, rather than new particles.


What "new" particles? Any explanation or links appreaciated.


Originally posted by Majic
But "dark matter" will not lead us there. The answer lies in better understanding the nature of gravity, energy in general and matter that actually exists.


I have to agree with you on that. The answers to the biggest mysteries might be just around us.
Thank you for the reply, it was thought-provoking.

--- ---
Also, thanks to xenophanes85 for the reply.
quicksilver, can you please clarify your point/question? I would like you to explain your point better, thanks!

--- --- ---



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
The discovery of new subatomic and "mystery" particles is by no means unusual or esoteric, there is a tremendous amount of news about it.

If you are interested in finding out more, here's a good place to start:

Google search for "new particle"

Of course, I don't speak from a perspective of omniscience. Rather, I have seen this same process played out before in other contexts.

The signs are all there: we are outgrowing current theoretical paradigms for matter, and the result is an ever-growing collection of "unexplained phenomena" that continues to openly challenge what is incorrectly believed to be established fact. As this collection continues to grow, ever more absurd attempts are made to explain the "anomalies" using extensions of current theory.

When observation opposes theory, it's time to revisit theory.

I am by no means alone in observing this trend, others also encourage "thinking outside the box". But this is not easy to do when such thinking goes against a lifetime of work and the teachings of institutions that spend years molding one's thoughts to conform to current thinking. Often, being too close to the problem is itself a problem.

Additionally, new theories must somehow agree with some elements of existing perceptions and observations, or else they cannot be integrated with the body of knowledge. So the theorist is challenged not only by the novelty of new theories, but must work to make them agree with existing theories, sometimes even with those they supersede! This process of integrating new theories with existing ones is by far the most labor-intensive, and is usually what takes pioneers the most time to accomplish when they have new ideas.

So speaking not as a prophet, but an observer, I am convinced that scientists are on the edge of a significant breakthrough in this field. Someone is going to make a wild leap in a new direction of thought, and it will take hold. When? I don't know, but I suspect soon, perhaps within the next few years.

It's going to be big.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 12:54 AM
link   
I don't think they (BH's) loose mass or energy for one important reason... they spit out less than they eat, for a lack of better terms and in reasonable theory. Think about it. If you reduced mass down to an event horison or a singularity, would you be able to push matter or energy thrugh faster than you could gobble it up? Do you possibly think that a black hole could be converting our universes energy or mass to a different plane in the universe or perhaps into another demision. If you go by the "mass on a blanket" theory then think of this also: the more mass pressed into one area.. the bigger the "dent" in the blanket. So where does that "dent" lead? Could dark matter be a shadow strewn up by black holes in distant galaxcies spewing mass into ours? I do belive Dark matter and black holes are linked. But to how and why? I do not know.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I don't know much about the physics behind black holes, but could it be that the dark matter as we call it can be the by-product of the process of "eating" by BHs.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by fivegrandgo
I don't think they (BH's) loose mass or energy for one important reason... they spit out less than they eat, for a lack of better terms and in reasonable theory. Think about it.


What do you think about the string theory-quantum mechanics?
Quote:
"In classical black hole physics, the event horizon is an absolute barrier to everything trying to get back outside. However, quantum mechanics brings with it quantum uncertainty, and quantum vacuum fluctuations where particle-antiparticle pairs are always being created, then destroying one another, virtually, in the vacuum.
In the animation above, P stands for particle and A stands for antiparticle. A particle-antiparticle pair is created for a brief instance just outside the black hole event horizon. Before the pair can destroy one another as usual, the antiparticle is sucked behind the event horizon, while the particle is ejected in the opposite direction. (Or vice versa.)
According to the physicist observing the event horizon by hanging from a rope by his thumbs, the black hole has emitted a particle through the event horizon. To a distant observer, the black hole's mass has now decreased by the mass of the emitted particle, and the area of the event horizon has gotten smaller!
But how can this happen? This means that the total area of black holes can and will decrease in time, and black holes can decay, contrary to the classical prediction using the Einstein equations and neglecting quantum physics."
Source: www.superstringtheory.com...



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by quiksilver
If this was true, wouldnt they lose energy (And there fore mass) and then the Schwarzschild radius would get smaller which doesn't happen?


They do lose energy in the form of Hawkin Radation. According to Hawkins Black Holes evaporate into nothing given enough time.


I think there very well might be White holes Perhaps not in our Dimension but in others thanks to Blackholes ripping holes in space time. This dimesion may not have laws like our own like say gravity. The matter is sucked through to the other side but the Gravity remains in our dimension. Which results in the huge amount of gravity with no mass.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 4-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I completly agree that BH's loose mass, but I do believe the mass ins't lossed at the same rate as intake. Almost like it trickles out over time. A time so great us humans cant comprehend. Its almost to say that black holes are the universes "garbage disposals". Just a thought: since black holes eat light as well. Do you think the light eaten is converted to matter?



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by fivegrandgo
I completly agree that BH's loose mass, but I do believe the mass ins't lossed at the same rate as intake. Almost like it trickles out over time. A time so great us humans cant comprehend. Its almost to say that black holes are the universes "garbage disposals". Just a thought: since black holes eat light as well. Do you think the light eaten is converted to matter?


That's an interesting thought.
Nothing escapes black holes. Just like mass, light can't escape BHs. That's because the strong gravity of BH curves space-time and photons just follow the curved path and get eaten up.

Talking about converting it to matter, I don't know.
Light is not matter since its massless. However massless photons have energy, so could it be possible that light is converted into the mysterious dark energy when it falls into the BH? Since we don't know much about dark energy, I don't have any explanation why I thought like that. These are just my stupid imaginary thoughts!



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
They do lose energy in the form of Hawkin Radation. According to Hawkins Black Holes evaporate into nothing given enough time.


That's true.
Also, according to the latest findings of Stephen Hawking, black holes give out matter eventually in a "mangled" form that was previously taken in. *

I was wondering if this "mangled" form of matter was related to the dark matter that is found to be concentrated mostly in a spherical form covering the galaxies.
Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

* Quote:


DUBLIN, Ireland (AP) -- Famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Wednesday that black holes, the mysterious massive vortexes formed from collapsed stars, do not destroy everything they consume but instead eventually fire out matter and energy "in a mangled form."

Hawking's radical new thinking, presented in a paper to the 17th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation in Dublin, capped his three-decade struggle to explain an elemental paradox in scientific thinking: How can black holes destroy all traces of consumed matter and energy, as Hawking long believed, when subatomic theory says such elements must survive in some form?

Hawking's answer is that the black holes hold their contents for eons but themselves eventually deteriorate and die. As the black hole disintegrates, they send their transformed contents back out into the infinite universal horizons from whence they came.
Source: www.space.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join