Black hole?

[MigL]

The politics of Black Holes ?

Why is there a political/religious undercurrent to anything we discuss here ?
Next thing someone will be comparing D Trump's divisiveness to Dark Energy separating everything at an increasing rate.

[Phi for All]

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

The politics of Black Holes ?

Why is there a political/religious undercurrent to anything we discuss here ?
Next thing someone will be comparing D Trump's divisiveness to Dark Energy separating everything at an increasing rate.

Good hypothesis. Can't wait till he's redshifted out of here. He got too close to Putin's event horizon and got trapped.

I think there actually is some politics that can be mentioned. The way we gain our information has become more and more concerned with entertainment rather than information, and that often means that good data is poorly presented, resulting in poor information. This whole "beyond the laws of physics" example shows how an attention-grabbing bit of entertainment corrupted the learning experience that should have happened.

[iNow]

Blackholes matter!

No, ALL holes matter!

[Phi for All]

39 minutes ago, iNow said:

Blackholes matter!

No, ALL holes matter!

Straight up, ma neutron.

[interested]

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

 

 

[Strange]

You might like this: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-could-matter-escape-the-event-horizon-during-a-black-hole-merger-f1f5681fd017

[Dubbelosix]

7 hours ago, interested said:

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

 

 

Where did you get this link from? I have quoted the link before, I am just wondering how you came across it?

 

I did actually find correlations between black hole dynamics and the evolution and stability of galactic structures. 

[interested]

11 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

Where did you get this link from? I have quoted the link before, I am just wondering how you came across it?

 

I did actually find correlations between black hole dynamics and the evolution and stability of galactic structures. 

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

 

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, interested said:

The big bounce idea rather than the big bang concept appeals to me.

These are not inconsistent. The big bounce is one possible variation of the big bang model. Unfortunately, the apparent acceleration of expansion seems to make it implausible.

12 minutes ago, interested said:

The expansion of space is increasing between galaxies, and space is at a constant temperature, there is no indication it is cooling or warming

Theory says it will continue cooling, as it has done so far.

12 minutes ago, interested said:

Space could quite happily be expanding without any big bang, and may always have been doing so.

The big bang model just says that space is expanding, so I'm not sure what the expansion without the big bang means. And there are versions of the big bang where the expansion has been going on forever.

14 minutes ago, interested said:

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

The mass of the black hole will be the same whether it is in the form of particles, radiation or something else. On the other hand we don't know what happens as matter falls towards the centre of the black hole - or what, if anything, stops it doing so. We will need a theory of quantum gravity to answer that. I'm not sure if any of the ideas out there (other than string theory) have any sort of explanation for this.

[interested]

17 hours ago, Strange said:

These are not inconsistent. The big bounce is one possible variation of the big bang model. Unfortunately, the apparent acceleration of expansion seems to make it implausible.

Theory says it will continue cooling, as it has done so far.

The big bang model just says that space is expanding, so I'm not sure what the expansion without the big bang means. And there are versions of the big bang where the expansion has been going on forever.

The mass of the black hole will be the same whether it is in the form of particles, radiation or something else. On the other hand we don't know what happens as matter falls towards the centre of the black hole - or what, if anything, stops it doing so. We will need a theory of quantum gravity to answer that. I'm not sure if any of the ideas out there (other than string theory) have any sort of explanation for this.

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

 

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, interested said:

There is no evidence the universe is cooling.

There is lots of evidence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

 

[interested]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

There is lots of evidence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

 

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.

[Strange]

34 minutes ago, interested said:

There is nothing in that link that proves the universe is cooling.

It is one thing to deny science, but it is a bt silly to lie about it: "Radiation from the Big Bang was demonstrably warmer at earlier times throughout the universe. Uniform cooling of the CMB over billions of years is explainable only if the universe is experiencing a metric expansion"

Quote

All you have is red shifted radiation due to dark energy and it is all at the same temperature more or less.

Or are you just incapable of understanding?  It is not red-shifted due to dark energy, but due to expansion and cooling (red shift means lower energy = cooler). It is all at the same temperature now, but it was much, much hotter then.

[interested]

On 11/24/2017 at 5:16 PM, Strange said:

It is one thing to deny science, but it is a bt silly to lie about it: "Radiation from the Big Bang was demonstrably warmer at earlier times throughout the universe. Uniform cooling of the CMB over billions of years is explainable only if the universe is experiencing a metric expansion"

Or are you just incapable of understanding?  It is not red-shifted due to dark energy, but due to expansion and cooling (red shift means lower energy = cooler). It is all at the same temperature now, but it was much, much hotter then.

(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

Edited November 25, 2017 by interested

[Strange]

1 minute ago, interested said:

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.

Sigh. Luckily, you don't need to depend on me being there. Science uses theories based on evidence:

https://sites.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/Notes/section3/bigbang.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Summary

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html

https://sciencing.com/temperature-universe-during-big-bang-4822.html

https://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123101622.htm

http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html

http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/Stars/l1.html

http://casswww.ucsd.edu/archive/public/tutorial/BB.html

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/bb/bb.html

[swansont]

4 hours ago, interested said:

(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

!

Moderator Note

Personal attacks are not acceptable. Knock it off and stick to the science.

 

[interested]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Personal attacks are not acceptable. Knock it off and stick to the science.

 

I did not cast the first stone, but point taken. 

12 hours ago, Strange said:

Sigh. Luckily, you don't need to depend on me being there. Science uses theories based on evidence:

https://sites.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/Notes/section3/bigbang.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Summary

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html

https://sciencing.com/temperature-universe-during-big-bang-4822.html

https://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123101622.htm

http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html

http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/Stars/l1.html

http://casswww.ucsd.edu/archive/public/tutorial/BB.html

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/bb/bb.html

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.

[interested]

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. ? 

[Strange]

4 hours ago, interested said:

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.

If you reject all data that is not measured directly then that is pretty much all of science out of the window. You need to understand how science works and how we know (with a high level of certainty) that the universe was once much hotter and has cooled since then. That would take more than a short post and is off topic here.

4 hours ago, interested said:

The thread is meant to be about Black holes.

Ironically, given your comment above, you are interested in what goes on inside black holes, which is something we can never observe directly (even in principle).  All we have are the predictions of various theories. Why is that acceptable here but not when it comes to the history of the universe?

4 hours ago, interested said:

I am assuming you think the big bang was caused by an exploding or disintegrating black hole blasting matter out into space

Absolutely not. Space is and always has been (as far as we know) homogeneously full of matter/energy. 

4 hours ago, interested said:

and that the big bang is not responsible for the expansion of space.

The big bang IS the expansion of space. There are different versions of the big bang as an "event" in different versions of the big bang model. In some models, there was no such event.

1 hour ago, interested said:

Scientists believe such a singularity exists at the core of a black hole,

I don't believe any (or certainly not many) scientists believe a singularity is anything other than an indication that our current theories no longer apply. There is no reason to think it has any physical reality.

1 hour ago, interested said:

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.

Both matter and radiation will end up at the singularity (in current models). There is no other direction they can go.

1 hour ago, interested said:

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. ?

We don't know where the original energy/matter in the universe came from. It could have always been there. It could be the result of an earlier universe collapsing. It could have been created by quantum fluctuations. There are (you will be pleased to know) theories that it could have come from the creation of a black hole in another universe. There are many other hypotheses but, at the moment, the only answer is "we don't know". (After all, we weren't there to observe it!  )

Similarly, we don't really know why most or all galaxies have supermassive black holes at the centre. Or even how such black holes can form. Was the galaxy created first and then the black hole? or vice versa? Or did they develop together?

One thing we can be sure of, they are not the result of multiple big bangs. There are theories with multiple big bangs (e.g. eternal inflation), and one thing they all have in common is that the universes created in that way are causally disconnected and moving apart at many times the speed of light.

[interested]

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.

 

[MigL]

" I prefer to ask questions rather than speculate and argue, so I am withdrawing from this forum for the time being at least BYE "

Really ?

With every misinformed post you make, you include some unfounded speculation.
You are misinformed about Black Holes, galactic formation, GR, and the Big Bang.

I suggest Strange is being very patient with you.
Don't squander it, learn something.

( Sorry for being curt, I'm feeling 'bitchy' today )

[Strange]

1 hour ago, interested said:

Theory is when you think you know everything and nothing works.

Theory is when you have a model that consistently produces accurate results. It is the closest thing to "fact" or "truth" that you get in science.

1 hour ago, interested said:

Dark matter is required to validate relativity, the big bang requires relativity.

No it isn't. It is required to explain a number of different observations. It may be that changes to relativity are required. And/or some extra matter. 

Quote

There is a very high chance dark matter does not exist. Where does that leave the big bang if relativity is wrong. 

If relativity has to change to account for the effects described as "dark matter" then that may cause some change to the big bang model. It is unlikely to show that the model is wrong in general, but may cause some adjustment to the details.

1 hour ago, interested said:

For that to be proven the CBR would have to be hotter and it is not according to everything I have read.

Because it has cooled along with the universe.

With all your anti-science rants and rejection of evidence, I'm not really sure what you are doing here.

[interested]

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.

 

 

 

[StringJunky]

26 minutes ago, interested said:

No sane person on the planet believes matter has always existed, or came out of a singularity at the beginning of time.

"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded" - Pratchett. Does that sound more sensible?

Edited November 26, 2017 by StringJunky

[interested]

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded" - Pratchett. Does that sound more sensible?

It makes more sense than a single big bang from a single singularity

6 hours ago, MigL said:

" I prefer to ask questions rather than speculate and argue, so I am withdrawing from this forum for the time being at least BYE "

Really ?

With every misinformed post you make, you include some unfounded speculation.
You are misinformed about Black Holes, galactic formation, GR, and the Big Bang.

I suggest Strange is being very patient with you.
Don't squander it, learn something.

( Sorry for being curt, I'm feeling 'bitchy' today )

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