Every Black Hole Contains A Universe

Originally posted by kdog1982

... my thought was what about infrared.

What about infrared?

It has been said that when the universe stops expanding,and all the stars have used op they're fuel,it will be a cold,dark place

At the point when the stars use up their fuel, they collapse to form black holes. Then, as the universe continues to expand (there's no hint of it stopping...in fact, it's been accelerating), space cools to the point where even the CMB is cooler than the remaining black holes, at which time they will stop growing and, with time, will evaporate through emission of Hawking radiation. This will leave a large, empty universe containing nothing but diffuse radiation.


ETA: just as an aside, the radius of a black hole with a black body temperature of 3000 K is 0.06074 microns. This is significantly smaller than the radius of the universe at Recombination (unless, of course, we suppose the current radius of the universe is 0.066815 mm, or 1/380 of an inch, which is obviously not the case).

I must be missing the math,the mass and the overall theoretics here.

I am trying to discover,as many are ,what happens after going through the rath of a black hole..

We propose a new theory of gravitation, in which the affine connection is the only dynamical variable describing the gravitational field. We construct the simplest dynamical Lagrangian density that is entirely composed from the connection, via its curvature and torsion, and is an algebraic function of its derivatives. It is given by the contraction of the Ricci tensor with a tensor which is inverse to the symmetric, contracted square of the torsion tensor, $k_[\mu\nu]=S^\rho_[\lambda\mu]S^\lambda_[\rho\nu]$. We vary the total action for the gravitational field and matter with respect to the affine connection, assuming that the matter fields couple to the connection only through $k_[\mu\nu]$. We derive the resulting field equations and show that they are identical with the Einstein equations of general relativity with a nonzero cosmological constant, if the tensor $k_[\mu\nu]$ is regarded as the metric tensor. The cosmological constant is simply a constant of proportionality between the two tensors, which together with $c$ and $G$ provides a natural system of units in gravitational physics. This theory therefore provides a physically valid construction of the metric as an algebraic function of the connection, and naturally explains the observed dark energy as an intrinsic property of spacetime. Comments: 7 pages

arxiv.org...

reply to post by kdog1982


Ahhh, yes...torsion. Torsion is what results when you allow General Relativity to include the QM effect of spin-orbit coupling. This is an attempt to form a quantum theory of gravity, and one thing it leads to is the equivalent of a large repulsive force at extremely high densities, which these scientists are using to hold the interior of a black hole apart.

Like most such theories, it's possible.

And to add one more thing for you science buffs....

If spacetime torsion couples to the intrinsic spin of matter according to the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory of gravity, then the resulting gravitational repulsion at supranuclear densities prevents the formation of singularities in black holes. Consequently, the interior of every black hole becomes a new universe that expands from a nonsingular bounce. We consider gravitational collapse of fermionic spin-fluid matter with the stiff equation of state in a stellar black hole. Such a collapse increases the mass of the matter, which occurs through the Parker-Zel'dovich-Starobinskii quantum particle production in strong, anisotropic gravitational fields. The subsequent pair annihilation changes the stiff matter into an ultrarelativistic fluid. We show that the universe in a black hole of mass $M_\textrm[BH]$ at the bounce has a mass $M_\textrm[b]\sim M^2_\textrm[BH] m^[1/2]_\textrm[n]/m^[3/2]_\textrm[Pl]$, where $m_\textrm[n]$ is the mass of a neutron and $m_\textrm[Pl]$ is the reduced Planck mass. For a typical stellar black hole, $M_\textrm[b]$ is about $10^[32]$ solar masses, which is $10^6$ larger than the mass of our Universe. As the relativistic black-hole universe expands, its mass decreases until the universe becomes dominated by nonrelativistic heavy particles.

arxiv.org...

Interesting theory for thought. Whether it is true or not would be impossible to prove at this point in time, but could produce a great deal of new avenues to explore.
Something really cool to think about over the summer when the days get long and "porch sitting" is taking place!

Black holes are everywhere. If it's believed to be true, then at the centre of every massive galaxy is a black hole. How can it be conceived that one black hole can be the cause of all others?

reply to post by mainidh


Because new stars are born and they die.

According to computer models and theory, it is not necessary for a galaxy to have a black hole at its center. The mass of the stars and gas clouds in the galaxy attracts and this gravitational attraction holds many galaxies together. This said, many, and probably most galaxies do have massive black holes at their center, including ellipsoidal galaxies and spiral galaxies with central bulges.

www.physlink.com...

Think of the black hole as the mother giving birth to something new.

Nice to see people thinking outside the box. I've heard similar theories for years but they were typically conceived of by laypeople (as opposed to the scientific clergy).

I've been working on a theory of the universe for the past 13 years. It's more math than physics, but as far as black holes go the implication is that whatever is on the outside of a black hole is reflected on the inside.

The event horizon is a dark mirror (time is reversed on the other side). Everything between ±1 and ∞ is reflected in between ±1 and 0. ±1 is the event horizon, 0 is the inner singularity, ∞ is the outer singularity. pic

Math is full of reflections. I enjoy finding them and connecting them with physics.

Funny thing about the big bang... it's the beginning of time too. Try to go "before" the big bang and you'll get a reflection of what comes after it. Like the positive and negative numbers being reflected around 0.

The big bang is like a black hole except we're experiencing it in a time-like fashion rather than space-like. Light speed is the event horizon for it.

It's really exciting stuff. Ironically, I consider black holes to be the simplest things in the universe considering their main components are defined by 0, 1, and ∞... or at least that's how I define them. I haven't heard anyone else define the event horizon like I do but the singularity is typically defined as 0, so you can extrapolate from there.

Hmm, our universe came from a singularity.

At the center of a black hole is a singularity.

There are many black holes in the universe. There is one at the center of our own galaxy.

That's why I believe in a multiverse. Now I am thinking multiverses.

Thanks kdog. Got me thinking. Good thread. I'll go back and read those links.

Personally I prefer to think on the possibility that rather than universes existing within black holes, that black holes are merely like the thundering valves of the heart of existance. Let me explain myself somewhat.

If you look at a picture of a black hole, taken through certain arcane instruments, you will see two cones, eminating from the centre. I remember clearly a particular image that would be perfect, which I believe was taken by the Chandra x ray telescope, although I cannot find the blessed thing for the life of me.

Now, these cones were actually emmissions from the black hole, not matter pouring into it. We KNOW that matter and energy, even photons, are sucked into a black hole, and we know that it produces output also. In this way I believe that a black hole is merely a valve of sorts, which shunts matter and energy from one universe, into another, while outputting energy in other forms, into our own, from other universes.

Of course, there is no actual evidence for that at the present time, however, I was not wrong when I suggested the existance of the super massive black hole when I was ten years old, and I am fairly in love with this idea in a similar fashion. Wether there is any truth in it will be a matter for the years ahead to prove or disprove, and in any event which ever outcome will no doubt create more questions than it answers. It is a delicious thought though.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
Personally I prefer to think on the possibility that rather than universes existing within black holes, that black holes are merely like the thundering valves of the heart of existance. Let me explain myself somewhat.

If you look at a picture of a black hole, taken through certain arcane instruments, you will see two cones, eminating from the centre. I remember clearly a particular image that would be perfect, which I believe was taken by the Chandra x ray telescope, although I cannot find the blessed thing for the life of me.

Now, these cones were actually emmissions from the black hole, not matter pouring into it. We KNOW that matter and energy, even photons, are sucked into a black hole, and we know that it produces output also. In this way I believe that a black hole is merely a valve of sorts, which shunts matter and energy from one universe, into another, while outputting energy in other forms, into our own, from other universes.

Of course, there is no actual evidence for that at the present time, however, I was not wrong when I suggested the existance of the super massive black hole when I was ten years old, and I am fairly in love with this idea in a similar fashion. Wether there is any truth in it will be a matter for the years ahead to prove or disprove, and in any event which ever outcome will no doubt create more questions than it answers. It is a delicious thought though.

Is it possible that the picture you remember could have been an artist's rendering based on the theory of that particular time instead of an actual photo? Not saying your wrong, just checking other possibilities since our understanding on the subject has changed greatly over the past decade.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


The image of which I am speaking was actually as close to raw as you can get. It was shown on the BBC a few years back, during one of the Beebs many interesting science television shows. The picture showed black detail on a white background, and the black hole was represented by a dark elipse, from which these cones eminated.

This was not a doctored image, or an artists representation, or a 3d model.

reply to post by TrueBrit


You seem to be talking about gamma ray bursts. Chandra doesn't image these, but what she does image is the x-ray "afterglow". GRBs are typically rendered as your standard black hole with two beams (or cones) of light coming from the poles. Though, this isn't necessarily the true cause of GRBs. Observations seem to indicate (at least in the case of long bursts) that they're caused by the violent collapse of fast-rotating massive stars - an event we usually call a hypernova. Shorter bursts are likely caused by the collapse of a binary neutron star system. Both of these events form a black hole, but neither leads to matter being ejected from the black hole - they're all just momentary bursts associated with the formation of a black hole.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

The image of which I am speaking was actually as close to raw as you can get. It was shown on the BBC a few years back, during one of the Beebs many interesting science television shows. The picture showed black detail on a white background, and the black hole was represented by a dark elipse, from which these cones eminated.

This was not a doctored image, or an artists representation, or a 3d model.

Cool
I wonder if, if it was from the Chandra x ray telescope, if it was a reverse-image showing dark spots as white and bright spots as dark... that may explain some of the unusual details

reply to post by TrueBrit


Black data on a white background would be typical of an x-ray "image." The only problem is, there is no possible way for Chandra to observe these cones side-to to image the cone shape. That would require having the cones/beams be perpendicular to the line of sight, in which case we wouldn't be able to see them. These cones are always facing us in order for us to see them, and that means they just show up as dots on the x-ray image.

If it shows cones of any type emanating from a black hole, then it's not an actual image. And that's ignoring the issue of imaging a black hole in the first place. You said the black hole was represented by a dark ellipse...that alone means the image was altered in some way (black holes are invisible, no matter what sort of camera you're using).

Originally posted by circlemaker
Nice to see people thinking outside the box. I've heard similar theories for years but they were typically conceived of by laypeople (as opposed to the scientific clergy).

I've been working on a theory of the universe for the past 13 years. It's more math than physics, but as far as black holes go the implication is that whatever is on the outside of a black hole is reflected on the inside.

The event horizon is a dark mirror (time is reversed on the other side). Everything between ±1 and ∞ is reflected in between ±1 and 0. ±1 is the event horizon, 0 is the inner singularity, ∞ is the outer singularity. pic

Math is full of reflections. I enjoy finding them and connecting them with physics.

Funny thing about the big bang... it's the beginning of time too. Try to go "before" the big bang and you'll get a reflection of what comes after it. Like the positive and negative numbers being reflected around 0.

The big bang is like a black hole except we're experiencing it in a time-like fashion rather than space-like. Light speed is the event horizon for it.

It's really exciting stuff. Ironically, I consider black holes to be the simplest things in the universe considering their main components are defined by 0, 1, and ∞... or at least that's how I define them. I haven't heard anyone else define the event horizon like I do but the singularity is typically defined as 0, so you can extrapolate from there.

Thought I would share your picture in case someone missed it.

reply to post by kdog1982


This is kind of like Lee Smolin's proposition, which is that black holes replicate or reproduce universes with the same 'fitness' mechanism of natural selection. There may be some truth to it, but black holes are violent and unfit for life. Our existence is a direct contradiction of that.

reply to post by imherejusttoread


Seems to me you can not have order without chaos.

reply to post by CLPrime


Hmm... Fair enough. I was mislead by the program. Disregard the portion of my posts which refer to that image. My deepest apologies.

reply to post by TrueBrit


I've been trying to find the image you're referring to, 'cause I'd really like to see it, to know what they were presenting it as...but no luck (that is, nothing matching what you described).

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by CLPrime

 

Hmm... Fair enough. I was mislead by the program. Disregard the portion of my posts which refer to that image. My deepest apologies.

awww mannnn, but trying to figure that part out was the funnest part!!