interested

It makes more sense than a single big bang from a single singularity Really? If people would stop answering I would stop replying. Having read some of your posts on political issues we will never agree. Be as Curt as you like, no need to apologise. The CBR temperature has not changed today, and it wont tomorrow either. Black holes according to many can and do lose matter, it appears strange does not like this concept, many people do not believe the Big bang was the source of all matter in the universe, perhaps religious types do and may be acceptable to you, it is not to me. The concept of black holes being the source of big bangs is plausible and does not it seems cause a break down in the known laws of physics, which big bangs and singularities do. Black holes exist at the centre of galaxies, WHY? Who do you think has misinformed me on things that no one appears to know much about. I am following all links I find, not just what is standard model, cherished by some. I picked on the subjects I have picked on, because I KNOW current understanding of the beginnings of all things is on very shakey ground before the formation of quarks and gluons, as is dark matter, and entanglement. They appear to be subjects that have not moved on much since I left school. Answer the post, Go ahead make my day Really

With all your none consistent posts and links to pseudo science websites which you claim back up your claims, I am not sure what I have been doing here either. No sane person on the planet believes matter has always existed, or came out of a singularity at the beginning of time.

There are too many contradictions in your answers and links to even start and prefer to ask the questions than provide answers and since I can not think of a sensible answer, here is a amusing one. Theory is when you think you know everything and nothing works. Practice is when everything works but know one knows why. In a laboratory theory and practice are combined, nothing works and know one knows why. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dark matter is required to validate relativity, the big bang requires relativity. There is a very high chance dark matter does not exist. Where does that leave the big bang if relativity is wrong. There are a lot of other theories around, ref the origins of matter. ----------------------------------------------------------- Theory is what scientists think they can explain but dont understand. Practice is how the universe works but know one knows how for sure. The laboratory is where theories are tested and occasionally fail. ---------------------------------------------------------------- I changed my mind. A hot gas cloud at the other side of the universe does not prove it originated with some hot singularity. For that to be proven the CBR would have to be hotter and it is not according to everything I have read. You can have a spiral galaxy originating from a spinning black hole decomposing by what ever means, in some mystical way like a big bang. It only takes a particle pair to be produced in a laboratory out of nothing to disprove the Big bang origens of the universe. Has that already been done in a quantum cafe where matter appears and disappears. George and Gracy in the quantum cafe may already have the answer with entangled quantum particles moving like some larger particle at absolute zero. Space after all is cold and bose einstein condensates can be entangled at near absolute zero. Photons can also be entangled why should not virtual particles not become entangled and become the original matter the universe is made from. After all, all things are quantum fluctuations, at least that is what I was told. I think you posted something above on particle pairs being formed from gamma rays. In the beginning their was light is a popular thing religious people say. What caused the original light that formed into particle pairs? Dont give me god said let their be light.

There is some good revision in those links and a point I was unaware off. This is it " Interestingly, astronomers can get an idea of how hot the universe used to be by looking at very distant clouds of gas through high-power telescopes. Because light from these clouds can take billions of years to reach our telescopes, we see such bodies as they appeared eons ago. Lo and behold, these ancient clouds of gas seem to be hotter than younger clouds. " Point to strange +1 However since my current interest is black holes and they can form a singularity "A singularity is a region of space-time in which matter is crushed so closely together that the gravitational laws explained by general relativity break down. In a singularity, the volume of space is zero and its density is infinite. Another way to say this is that the curvature of space-time is infinite. Scientists believe such a singularity exists at the core of a black hole, which occurs when a super-massive sun reaches the end of its life and implodes. General relativity also demands such a singularity must exist at the beginning of an expanding universe." What I am thinking and being consistent with the laws of physics is that any matter entering a black hole is compressed and heated to such a level that it breaks down into a quark gluon plasma, the quark anti quarks may annihilate each other and become radiation. This will happen before a singularity occurs, and so it will not happen and general relativity does not need to break down. If one looks at the big bang it starts with a singularity at mind boggling temperatures. A singularity does not need to exist inside a black hole unless you believe everything you read. Matter will be converted into something like that which is predicted to exist in big bang theory. If a black hole does not develop a singularity and cause the laws of physics to break down due to decomposing matter back into radiation, it could explode like a big bang, releasing the radiation and shortly after the explosion or decomposition of the black hole, the universe is filled with a quark–gluon plasma. From this point onwards the physics of the early universe is better understood, and the energies involved in the Quark epoch are directly amenable to experiment. The question then is still where did the original energy come forming the first quark gluon plasma, and why do all galaxies appear to have a blackhole in their centre, are they the result of multiple big bangs throughout an already expanding universe. ?

I did not cast the first stone, but point taken. These links will take time to read, my point ref the temperature of the universe, is true. It has never been measured to be anything else. Your extrapolations are from current theories, of which there are quite a few to read. The fact is the temperature has never been measured to be any different to what it is today. The thread is meant to be about Black holes. You mentioned above that space was always expanding even before the big bang, which I find a little confusing. I am assuming you think the big bang was caused by an exploding or disintegrating black hole blasting matter out into space, having created the heavier elements from what ever it sucked in in the first place, and that the big bang is not responsible for the expansion of space. Which appears to contradict current big bang theory as I understand it.

(Silly huh who is misinterpreting the the observed facts) Oh my god you were there at the big bang and have measured the temperature falling to its CONSTANT value of 2.75 Kelvin today which it has been and will be for the next billion years plus or minus a millisecond. I was so stupid to doubt anything you write. I suspect which in no way is intended to be offensive that you maybe a MORON, red shift indicates things are moving away from us and blue shift towards us it does not indicate temperature change unless you are a xxxxing xxxxx PS My math ability is above average strange get a life

There is nothing in that link that proves the universe is cooling. All you have is red shifted radiation due to dark energy and it is all at the same temperature more or less. This link suggests that dark matter, and dark energy do not exist. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.11425.pdf Dark matter I am not overly surprised about, but I was kind of banking on quantum fluctuations in space being the cause of dark energy and an accelerating expansion of the universe. I was also thinking black holes spinning and losing matter in the early formation stages might explain flat spiral galaxies. The maths uses a few approximations, simplifications and assumes a few things etc, but it looks like dark matter can go into the bin, and galaxies become flat with time, (which I am not overly convinced about). And the fella even explains dark energy, all of which are active areas of research Ho Ho. Chuckle, yes I know the paper needs checking but It like I said in my now locked thread dark matter might not exist.

Just in case no one else spotted this bit of news, Dark matter might not exist after all https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.11425.pdf

There is no evidence the universe is cooling. There are loads of theories which is most likely why my posts are all over the place, depending on what I read last, and if I believed it or not. Galaxies are flat, and revolving, they have blackholes at the centre. When galaxies were formed they would be contracting and revolving faster and faster, the heavier elements most likely would have been thrown to the outer arms of the individual galaxies. Before a huge star formed at the centre of the galaxies which most likely supernovaed and collapsed into a black hole, and span even faster. etc The Problem with string theory there isnt just one string theory there are dozens. Also a mathematical model can not hope to model everything in the known universe, there are toooooo many variables. My view is that a Quantum theory of gravity using a bit of probability to get around the number of variables, and chances of things happening, is really the only plausible way to go. This applies to space also I think Mordreds thread addressing this, everything even space is just quantum fluctuations. Space is expanding due to quantum fluctuations, matter came out of space one way or another, and gravity is caused by the contraction of space, quantum fluctuations in space are heavier material mini black holes maybe ejected when galaxies were formed could be the source of dark matter with anything in between, etc. I prefer to ask questions rather than speculate and argue, so I am withdrawing from this forum for the time being at least BYE

Teleportation of info between atoms. https://phys.org/news/2009-01-long-distance-teleportation-atoms-meter.html and faster bose einstein condensates https://phys.org/news/2017-11-physicists-faster-bose-einstein-condensates.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter

google. I was looking for concepts on black holes, and dark energy, dark matter, the nature of space, etc. The big bounce idea rather than the big bang concept appeals to me. The expansion of space is increasing between galaxies, and space is at a constant temperature, there is no indication it is cooling or warming, space is just getting bigger due to dark energy. The finger print for a constant level of dark energy could be CBR. Space could quite happily be expanding without any big bang, and may always have been doing so. I was toying with the idea that dark energy could be the source of the CBR instead of a big bang, which seems plausible. Blackholes could be the source of the heaviest matter in the universe, and disintegrate over a period of time, not only through hawking radiation. IE what happens inside a blackhole when the pressures and temperatures are so high the atoms lose neutrons and decay into antiparticles and annihilate themselves resulting in blackholes being full of nothing but radiation, the mass will disappear in the core and allow it to implode and accelerate the process resulting in a reduced amount of mass inside the blackhole. This could result in gamma ray bursts emitting from the centre of galaxies as is observed. Blackholes gain their mass from somewhere, and may destroy it and space etc blah blah. etc etc

I see the thread has been hijacked by trolls talking about their own personal hole theories. http://www.cosmotography.com/images/supermassive_blackholes_drive_galaxy_evolution_2.html

Finally a good answer. At last at least some one knows something about what laws dont apply inside a black hole. I thought big bangs and black holes were accepted by the catholic church, infact have you not written somewhere else on the forum the big bang theory was developed by a catholic priest. It is more likely an atheist conspiracy to disagree with the church and state a single big bang was not the beginning of everything. Being a expert, I guess you are stating loop quantum gravity is nonsense, and all those people working on it are educated idiots. But that is just one of many conclusions I can come too.

My questions were based around things science appears not to fully understand or is in a state of flux on, like entanglement, dark matter, dark energy, and black holes, quantum gravity etc etc. I have the answers I wanted, mostly via the use of google but thanks for your efforts anyway. It was a bit like getting blood from a stone, but it was worth it. I note you post prolifically on many threads on the forum everything from religion up over. Why would a scientist even consider posting on religion, it seems very strange to me. Out of interest how many science/physics forums do you post on including this one? Is that normal? I will no doubt remain interested in physics for the for present. Thanks for the advice but like always your answer was a little off the mark. I will make my own mind up what I will or wont be interested in. Thanks

I am looking specifically at extant theories and ideas at the moment and have avoided speculating unless I have not received plausible answers. I would like to keep it that way for the time being. Am I on the wrong forum, asking questions that might require people to speculate. If so what forum would you suggest?

Yes I agree but to answer your question. A fermion can become a boson via collision with its antiparticle. A fermion in string theory is represented as a closed loop and a boson as a open loop. I was wondering if the boson could be constrained in a tight loop at the centre of a black hole and become a fermion again, the thought amused me, considering where matter is thought to come out of a singularity. You previously stated " The photons from Hawking radiation could, conceivably create particle-antiparticle pairs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production) but I don't know if they would have enough energy." Radiation is radiation can it create particle pairs if it has enough energy.? Can it do this inside a blackhole? Light can not escape a black hole singularity. The question is what is the photon doing inside a blackhole when it reaches the centre, if it cant be stationery, if the energy is absorbed by mass, the mass will increase in temperature and any molecules will break down into fundamental particles eventually destroying themselves. This will continue until you have something resembling the big bang scenario. I agree you cant break the laws of physics, but they can be applied to what is observed. Why do galaxies have black holes at their centres? No one knows is not a good answer on the speculations thread, especially when everyone knows about theories of multiple big bangs originating from black holes etc. Would Radiation coming from the centre of a blackhole or a blackhole disintegrating and losing mass be evidence that Quantum loop gravity is correct, and blackholes are remnants of big bounces rather bangs? Thanks for that ditto

Mass and energy being interchangeable is correct, but boson and fermion energy are not the same, one is moving at c the other is stationery. If a photon is stationery it becomes a fermion does it not. Thought experiment: if I travel at c alongside a photon with E = 511eV what am I looking at a fermion or a boson? Gold is pretty light along with some other heavy elements https://www.lenntech.com/periodic/mass/atomic-mass.htm so no, it is not clear where the heavier stuff came from! I posted this question under speculations because No one knows, or at least google seems to run out of steam at gold and platinum level. You are most likely correct a theory of quantum gravity will most likely sort out most of these questions, but in the end will ever know, and who will care once Andromeda has its wicked way with the milky way.

If the energy is concentrated on a hypothetical centre of a black hole regardless of all photons combining to form one photon momentarily or not, it is a lot of energy at the centre of the black hole and it will be very hot. Does a photon have a theoretical maximum frequency limited by the plank length? If all or part of the mass was converted to photons inside a black hole, does the black hole still remain viable, without mass. Could a black hole supernovae if its core converted into photons allowing the core to collapse inwards causing a Big Bounce rather than big bang https://phys.org/news/2013-05-theorists-loop-quantum-gravity-theory.html ? It seems some clever people are thinking its possible. Is a neutron star collision or supernovae of a normal star sufficient to cause the heaviest elements.? Could the heaviest elements in the universe be from the centre of black holes? Why do galaxies have black holes at their centre? could they be relics of multiple big bounces?

Are the gravitational waves detected by ligo solely attractive are do they repel also. The readings do not make it clear. Most likely it is a increase in decrease in gravity attraction detected but then dark energy seems to repel?

electrons and positrons when viewed side by side with opposite spin have magnetic polarity North South both facing upwards do they not? photons are electrically neutral, how can they be anything else.

I read the laws of physics do not apply inside a black hole so it raised an eyebrow and hence the question mark? I also read that we do not know what happened during the first stages of the big bang and read a bit about loop quantum gravity etc etc I think It does make a difference if all the matter turns into radiation. Photons can all occupy the same space whereas fermions can not, no matter how hard you squeeze them, unless maybe the laws of physics break down and they convert into other fundamental particles with larger masses/inertias/energy ?. If all the photons exist in a central point and cant escape there would be a lot of energy going no where. A photon which is stationery ie disappeared down a wormhole up its own field fluctuation may be like a particle, ie if a particle antiparticle annihilation can result in gamma rays, constricting them into a small space could result in them disappearing up there own field fluctuation and becoming particles, perhaps? Thanks for the link, I think I may have read it before. Would photons forced into the centre of a blackhole combine and increase in energy, until they had enough energy to escape?

A blackhole is formed when a very massive star after converting all of its hydrogen to higher elements , collapses under its own weight.The sphere(star) becomes smaller and smaller until it reaches its schwarzschildradius(the minimum radius of a given mass to form a black hole.The small sphere collapses further . It becomes so dense and its gravity is so huge that it breaks the fabric of spacetime such that the laws of physics no longer apply there.The blackhole is formed around it because light cannot escape from its surface as the gravitational pull is simply enormous.There is an apparent surface from which light cannot escape.This is the event horizon. What laws of physics no longer apply inside a black hole? The simpleton view I have, is as the pressure rises due to increasing mass the temperature inside will increase, as the temperature increases fusion reactions will take place creating heavier and heavier elements as they would in a star. As the temperature continues to rise will a plasma form from the matter inside the black hole? Would this plasma consist of fermions? particles and anti particles that will annihilate and turn into radiation. Photons can occupy the same space unlike fermions, would this not moderate the gravitational force produced by a black hole? Hawking radiation can escape from a black hole does this not moderate its gravitational strength to some maximum. What would happen inside a black hole if all or some of the matter was turned into radiation, Big Bang perhaps? What happens to the radiation escaping from a blackhole, can it form back into particles?

A guess its a NO then unless you are into science fiction and inter dimensional beings etc. I think this may be a joke or something from the many new age religions, but there is loads of amusing stuff on this subject mainly the ufo type, but it seems some people including nasa might even believe this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdimensional_being . Errrr Um, It makes me wonder what planet some folk are on. The space drive looked interesting!

I am a simpleton. Can you expand on the above statement, My basic understanding is that the (fermions) particles anti particles have opposite spin, and the same polarity. When represented in super symmetric string theory they are a closed loop rotating in opposite directions, when the string is broken they become photons why would they not be identical? Multiple photons can exist in the same space. At least that is what I thought, until I read what you wrote. Would an antiphoton cause a photon to disappear completely? I kind of reasoned that if a photon with sufficient energy spirals down a wormhole, it will eventually catch up with its tail end close the loop and become a fermion again being either an anti particle or particle depending on spiraling direction as it disappeared up its own xxxx wave

My old boss used to say "never assume anything unless you want to make an ass of u and me". Quoting from the link below ref gravity waves, there are others links on the subject also, but it has recently been shown gravity waves travel at light speed with a reasonable degree of certainty. ie they keep up with the gamma/x rays originating from the same source. " However on August 17 a single merging event was detected that delivered all the puzzle pieces in one swoop, when for the first time a range of sophisticated equipment picked up a series of signals from two neutron stars colliding. These included a gravity wave, a ripple in the fabric of space time, detected by the famous LIGO and VIRGO observatories. The gravity wave was quickly found to nearly coincide with a burst of gamma rays from detected by the Fermi satellite. The observatories swiftly alerted a world-wide association of astronomers with access to a vast suite of telescopes and satellites capable of detecting cosmic light spanning the entire electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves to high-energy gamma rays. This equipment captured the light from a kilo-nova, a type of radioactive explosion produced in the collision and predicted by theory. Two weeks later, the Chandra satellite detected high-energy X-rays consistent with a gamma ray burst, the most powerful kind of explosion in the universe, a signature of the birth of a black hole and the launch of a beam of material at speeds close to that of light. " http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/news/2017/10/16/first-light-gravity-wave/ (unrelated dark matter issue axioms dont exist either https://phys.org/news/2017-11-dark-narrowed.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter )