DARK ENERGY IN A NEW LIGHT

[CJWilli1]

According to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, mass/gravity bends the fabric of space-time. The greater the mass/gravitational pull of an object, the more it curves space-time. This causes time to pass slower in areas of space that have stronger gravitational fields. For example, if you synchronize two atomic clocks on the surface of earth, then put one of the clocks in orbit and left the other on the surface of earth, then the clock in orbit would run slightly faster. So the relationship is as you approach a center of mass, time runs slower. In other words, as gravity increases the passage of time decreases (relative to outside observer). The objects in the universe with the greatest gravity that we know of are black holes. Because of their extreme gravity, or warping of space time, objects that fall into a black hole will appear frozen in time from the perspective of an outside observer. An object that has crossed the event horizon will continue to fall towards the singularity, but will appear frozen in time to an outside observer. So if you fell into a black hole, and somehow stayed alive, you would continue to fall into towards the singularity. But from the perspective of an outside observer you would appear to freeze in time before you crossed the event horizon. The light that produced your frozen image would then radiate away. 

 

According to Steven Hawking, Black Holes will eventually radiate away. In other words black holes will emit light. But isn’t the gravitational pull of a black hole so strong that light cannot escape? In order to make sense of this apparent contradiction we have to talk about the temperature of space and very basic thermodynamics. 

 

Space is very cold relative to the temperatures we experience here on earth. But the temperature of space is nowhere near absolute zero. In fact the temperature of “empty” space is about 2.73 Kelvin. That may be cold, but not in comparison to the temperature of black holes. The temperature of a solar mass black hole could have a temperature of about 0.00000006 Kelvin, and black holes get even colder as they increase in mass. Since energy flows from hot to cold, black holes absorb light rather than emit it. But as universe expands, due to a mysterious force known as dark energy, it cools. After an inconceivably long amount of time, the temperature of the surrounding universe will become colder than that of the black hole. Because energy moves from hot to cold the black hole will release its contents into its surroundings. This will occur slowly at first, and will accelerate faster as time moves on. All the matter/ energy that is densely packed into the singularity of a black hole will expand and radiate into the surrounding space.

 

My theory 

 

Imagine if the properties of black holes are reversed once the temperature of space surrounding the black hole drops below it. Instead of the matter and energy being crushed and into a single point, it would expand outwards in every direction. Instead of matter appearing to slow in time as it accelerates towards the singularity, that energy would speed up in time as it accelerates away from the singularity (relative to an outside observer). If the energy that is released from the black hole somehow contained an observer within it, then that person may experience time similar to we do, but the cold space that surrounds that expanding field of energy would appear frozen in time. Even if a person experienced an eternity as they exited a singularity, that timeline could occur in a brief moment to an outside observer. A person living within a radiating black hole would be in a pit of slowed time that gradually speeds up until it is uniform with the surrounding universe. 

 

Now imagine a universe that existed before ours. A star in this universe collapsed and formed a black hole. Then the universe expanded until was cold and dark. Once it’s temperature dropped below that of the black hole, the contents of the singularity were released into the surrounding cold dead space at an accelerating rate. Perhaps this sequence of events is what caused our Big Bang and accelerating expansion. We may be a child that is expanding into our cold and dead parent universe. Perhaps what we call dark energy is the just the effect of the cold vacuum that surrounds us.

 

Now imagine another universe with an accelerating rate of expansion that is identical to ours, the only difference is that this universe contains a billion times more matter than ours. The increased mass and gravity would result in the entire universe collapsing in on itself. In order for it not to collapse back in on itself you would have to increase the accelerating rate of expansion. 

 

Now let us compare black holes of different masses. Black hole A has less mass than black hole B. Since B is more massive it is also colder than A. Because of B’s lower temperature, the temperature of the surrounding universe that will allow B to radiate away will have to be much lower than that of A. In other words, the more massive a black hole is, the colder the surrounding space is when the singularity releases its energy into it. The greater difference in heat between contents of the singularity and its surroundings causes a increased accelerating rate of expansion. This increased rate of expansion is countered by the increased gravity resulting from the greater mass. So as you increase the mass of a black hole, the energy that causes the singularity to expand increases. In other words gravity and “dark energy” are always balanced. If you increase mass you increase dark energy. So black holes may all expand at the same net rate relative to an observer within them. 

 

So if black holes create new universes within ours, then does the matter they contain make any difference in the timelines they create when they expand? Perhaps all forces and outcomes of the universe stem from the balance of gravity pulling inwards and the surrounding vacuum that pulls it outwards (aka dark energy). And if the balance of these forces remains constant then perhaps the timelines created within these radiating black holes are identical to that of this universe. 

 

No matter what enters a black hole, whether it’s a star or an asteroid, it will become spagettified until it is uniform. Anything that approaches a singularity will be stretched and pulled into hot string of plasma 1 atom wide. But why stop there? An atom closer to the singularity will experience more gravity than one that is further away, so they will separate. Even the side of the proton closer to the singularity will experience more gravity than the side further away. This could cause even the smallest known particles to be split apart due to the extreme gravity. Perhaps the energy stored at the singularity is composed of the smallest and hottest possible substance uniformly. The amount of this substance that exists within the singularity does not matter. When the black hole expands, all this hot energy will be released from a single point that expands at a fixed rate, recreating the exact conditions of our Big Bang. In other words the size of the universe at its origin will remain constant, being a singularity with (almost) no volume. The force gravity will remain constant, and the acceleration of expansion will remain constant. 

 

If this is true, then the smallest, hottest, and most indivisible particle that is released from a singularity encodes the information for every possible outcome in our universe. Every thought, memory,  person, planet, star, black hole, and galaxy are all encoded in the smallest division of matter. That smallest division of matter forms our universe when it is pulled apart in every direction by the surrounding vacuum of space. 

 

[beecee]

Wow! where to start. Firstly the DE that is causing the universe to accelerate in its expansion rate, is a property of spacetime, and acts as it does because it remains a constant so that  as our cosmos grows bigger it continues to expand  faster. We have no reason to believe or hypothesise that DE has anything to do with mass/matter.

Our knowledge of BH's is rather scarce, although our best assumptions should align with Einstein's GR. From any outside perspective, nothing is seen to actually cross the EH of any BH, rather as it is time dilated towards infinity, and the light continually redshifted as the EH is approached, we would see any image approaching the EH as continually redshifted until beyond the capabilities of any viewing apparatus that we had and just fade from view.

Also the process known as Hawking Radiation that you discuss does not involve any particle crossing the EH from inside to outside. It involves virtual particles where one positive escapes before annihilation takes place and one negative gets sucked in, and in doing so, to maintain the law of conservation, subtracts from the overall mass of the BH.

Matter that does get sucked in, as you say, is spaghettified and gradually ripped apart into its most basic fundamental parts as it approaches the singularity at the core. In other words the effects of tidal gravitation, overcomes all the other forces including the strong nuclear force.

That's about all we can reasonably assume based on current laws of physics and GR. Anyhthing else, like BH's leading to baby universes and the like, is pure unsupported speculation at this time.

Note: Nothing physically crosses the EH from inside to outside...nothing.

Edited February 16, 2019 by beecee

[Strange]

6 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

But from the perspective of an outside observer you would appear to freeze in time before you crossed the event horizon. The light that produced your frozen image would then radiate away. 

This is not true, partly for the reason you give: there will be a finite number of photons edited before you fall through the event horizon, therefore you would only be visible for a finite time. Also because the event horizon would expand to encompass the extra mass.

6 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

Imagine if the properties of black holes are reversed once the temperature of space surrounding the black hole drops below it.

Why? There is no basis for imagining such a thing.

You might as well say, "imagine the black hole is a unicorn's egg". It makes as much sense.

The makes the rest of your post pretty much irrelevant.

6 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

Once it’s temperature dropped below that of the black hole, the contents of the singularity were released into the surrounding cold dead space at an accelerating rate. Perhaps this sequence of events is what caused our Big Bang and accelerating expansion.

You are assuming a black hole with the mass of the entire universe - that sounds implausible.

Also, the Big Bang does not have anything in common with an explosion of stuff into empty space.

[CJWilli1]

6 hours ago, beecee said:

Wow! where to start. Firstly the DE that is causing the universe to accelerate in its expansion rate, is a property of spacetime, and acts as it does because it remains a constant so that  as our cosmos grows bigger it continues to expand  faster. We have no reason to believe or hypothesise that DE has anything to do with mass/matter.

Our knowledge of BH's is rather scarce, although our best assumptions should align with Einstein's GR. From any outside perspective, nothing is seen to actually cross the EH of any BH, rather as it is time dilated towards infinity, and the light continually redshifted as the EH is approached, we would see any image approaching the EH as continually redshifted until beyond the capabilities of any viewing apparatus that we had and just fade from view.

Also the process known as Hawking Radiation that you discuss does not involve any particle crossing the EH from inside to outside. It involves virtual particles where one positive escapes before annihilation takes place and one negative gets sucked in, and in doing so, to maintain the law of conservation, subtracts from the overall mass of the BH.

Note: Nothing physically crosses the EH from inside to outside...nothing.

Even if DE is be proved to be a property of spacetime that doesn’t nessecarily mean that the property “just is” and there isn’t something driving it. Why shouldn’t we assume that whatever lies outside the boundaries of our universe has an effect on us? If our universe was hot at the start of the Big Bang, and we expand outwards, why can’t we assume that the outside is cold which causes us to flow towards it? Even if the flow of heat and DE are two separate things, we still shouldn’t dismiss the flow of heat as not being an important factor that drives the expansion. 

From what I’ve read about black holes, if you watched someone cross the event horizon, you would see them stop in time before they crossed it, and they would red shift until they faded away. 

Even though matter technically never escapes the event horizon, the positive virtual particles that escape from their negative pair become real particles. So wouldn’t that mirror the matter being released by the singularity? Wouldn’t the result be the same?

1 hour ago, Strange said:

This is not true, partly for the reason you give: there will be a finite number of photons edited before you fall through the event horizon, therefore you would only be visible for a finite time. Also because the event horizon would expand to encompass the extra mass.

Why? There is no basis for imagining such a thing.

You might as well say, "imagine the black hole is a unicorn's egg". It makes as much sense.

The makes the rest of your post pretty much irrelevant.

You are assuming a black hole with the mass of the entire universe - that sounds implausible.

Also, the Big Bang does not have anything in common with an explosion of stuff into empty space.

Didn’t I say the image appears frozen in time then radiates away? How is saying that  the image radiates away imply that it isn’t finite? 

 

There is a basis for imagining such a thing. If the energy that is crushed into a singularity undergoes a certain force, wouldn’t the release of that energy imply an equal and opposite force? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. 

 

Why couldnt a black hole with the mass of the universe exist? Would it collapse in on itself? 

Edited February 16, 2019 by CJWilli1

[Strange]

28 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

There is a basis for imagining such a thing. If the energy that is crushed into a singularity undergoes a certain force, wouldn’t the release of that energy imply an equal and opposite force? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. 

It is known that no force can prevent the collapse of matter into a black hole. So imagining a "certain force" that would cause a black hole to explode is just fantasy. This is a science forum and, even in the Speculations area, we expect ideas to be supported by existing science and evidence. Just making stuff up is not science.

31 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

Didn’t I say the image appears frozen in time then radiates away? How is saying that  the image radiates away imply that it isn’t finite? 

"Frozen in time" sound like you were saying it was ... well, you know, frozen in time and therefore would always be there. If you just mean that it would slow and then disappear, then maybe that is what you should say.

32 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

Why shouldn’t we assume that whatever lies outside the boundaries of our universe has an effect on us?

There is nothing outside the universe. The universe has no boundary.

33 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

Even though matter technically never escapes the event horizon, the positive virtual particles that escape from their negative pair become real particles. So wouldn’t that mirror the matter being released by the singularity? Wouldn’t the result be the same?

Because Hawking radiation occurs outside the even horizon. 

[CJWilli1]

38 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is known that no force can prevent the collapse of matter into a black hole. So imagining a "certain force" that would cause a black hole to explode is just fantasy.

There is nothing outside the universe. The universe has no boundary.

Because Hawking radiation occurs outside the even horizon. 

As the black hole radiates, the radius of the event horizon diminishes at an accelerating rate. The event horizon approaches the singularity. At the moment before the black hole dies, is it possible that the event horizon somehow exists on the “edge” of the singularity? As a negative virtual particle is accelerated towards the singularity, wouldn’t the positive virtual particle/ real particle escape with an equal and opposite acceleration? I’ve read that a black holes radiate slowly at first and accelerate as time moves on.  So isn’t there a relationship between the distance from the singularity and the acceleration of a virtual particle escaping from the event horizon? And wouldn’t that relationship exist regardless of the fact that Hawking radiation occurs outside the event horizon?

I agree with the fact that the universe has no true boundary, but I don’t agree there’s nothing outside of it. If our universe’s surroundings is composed of atoms approaching absolute zero as they drift light years apart from one another, wouldn’t that space be indestinguishable from nothing? 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, CJWilli1 said:

As the black hole radiates, the radius of the event horizon diminishes at an accelerating rate. The event horizon approaches the singularity. At the moment before the black hole dies, is it possible that the event horizon somehow exists on the “edge” of the singularity?

There is probably no such thing as a singularity, but we probably need a theory of quantum gravity to say more. As the (notional) singularity is zero size, the event horizon doesn't reach it until it has zero mass.

1 hour ago, CJWilli1 said:

As a negative virtual particle is accelerated towards the singularity, wouldn’t the positive virtual particle/ real particle escape with an equal and opposite acceleration?

The radiation has a black body spectrum and the temperature is inversely proportional to the radius of the event horizon. This has nothing to do with the presence of a singularity; it is purely related to the curvature at the event horizon. Whatever happens to the particle that falls into the black hole can have no effect on the particle outside. (And this description in terms of virtual particle pairs is just an analogy that only approximately matches the mathematics.)

1 hour ago, CJWilli1 said:

 So isn’t there a relationship between the distance from the singularity and the acceleration of a virtual particle escaping from the event horizon?

Particles outside the even horizon cannot be affected by anything inside the event horizon (that is why it is called an event horizon).

1 hour ago, CJWilli1 said:

I agree with the fact that the universe has no true boundary, but I don’t agree there’s nothing outside of it. If our universe’s surroundings is composed of atoms approaching absolute zero as they drift light years apart from one another, wouldn’t that space be indestinguishable from nothing? 

If there is something outside" then that implies a boundary: otherwise, what separates "inside" from "outside"?

And why would there be atoms approaching absolute zero? Why wouldn't atoms and radiation from the (relatively) warmer "inside" pass through the boundary and warm them up?

[QuantumT]

I have a totally different theory about this exact subject.

But before I explain it, I need the opinions of you guys about a key element in it:

What would happen if a photon hit a fluctuated particle in the vacuum of deep space?

[Mordred]

Destructive interference if the two interact. That will depend on what the wave functions of the fluctuated particle however keep your personal theories to its own thread

Edited February 16, 2019 by Mordred

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

I have a totally different theory about this exact subject.

But before I explain it, I need the opinions of you guys about a key element in it:

What would happen if a photon hit a fluctuated particle in the vacuum of deep space?

!

Moderator Note

My opinion is that you should not be hijacking a discussion to talk about your personal “theory”

 

[QuantumT]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

My opinion is that you should not be hijacking a discussion to talk about your personal “theory”

 

Oops! I'm used to not being allowed to make "spin off threads" other places, so I though this would be better. Sorry!

[beecee]

4 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

Even if DE is be proved to be a property of spacetime that doesn’t nessecarily mean that the property “just is” and there isn’t something driving it. 

The DE property of spacetime is observed in the continued acceleration. The DE [whatever it really is] is the driving force behind the continued acceleration.

Quote

Why shouldn’t we assume that whatever lies outside the boundaries of our universe has an effect on us? If our universe was hot at the start of the Big Bang, and we expand outwards, why can’t we assume that the outside is cold which causes us to flow towards it? Even if the flow of heat and DE are two separate things, we still shouldn’t dismiss the flow of heat as not being an important factor that drives the expansion.

 The BB was the evolution of space and time [henceforth known as spacetime] as we know them from t+10-43 seconds. There is no "outside" to consider. The expanding universe is all there is and all our current models entail.

Quote

From what I’ve read about black holes, if you watched someone cross the event horizon, you would see them stop in time before they crossed it, and they would red shift until they faded away. 

No, from an outside frame of reference, anything approaching the EH, is certainly slowed down as it approaches and as I said, is redshifted beyond our ability to see it, so simply fades from view. Of course from the local frame of whatever it is approaching the EH, nothing extraordinary happens, [ignoring tidal gravitational effects] and it falls across the EH and oblivion.

Quote

Even though matter technically never escapes the event horizon, the positive virtual particles that escape from their negative pair become real particles. So wouldn’t that mirror the matter being released by the singularity? Wouldn’t the result be the same?

Nothing technical about it, nothing physically crosses the EH once inside and the only possible paths are those towards the singularity. Hawking Radiation is simply a quantum effect, and although mostly likely, has not as yet been actually validated. It also is simply re-enforcing the conservation law.

Quote

I agree with the fact that the universe has no true boundary, but I don’t agree there’s nothing outside of it. If our universe’s surroundings is composed of atoms approaching absolute zero as they drift light years apart from one another, wouldn’t that space be indestinguishable from nothing? 

All we can say again, is that the BB was the evolution of space and time [as we know them] from t+10-43 seconds and the spacetime as we know them, is our whole universe. There is no outside and there is no boundary. While we hear plenty about what existed before the BB, what the BB arose from, parallel universes and such, it is still all just speculative scenarios and we have no evidence supporting such concepts.

Also spacetime is not nothing. It is the arena within which it is possible to locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of spatial coordinates and time. GR  describes gravity in terms of curvature of spacetime. Any real nothing that exists maybe the quantum foam, or spacetime in some unknown form that at this time we have no information on.

4 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

There is a basis for imagining such a thing. If the energy that is crushed into a singularity undergoes a certain force, wouldn’t the release of that energy imply an equal and opposite force? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.  

It's worth noting here, and as Strange has mentioned, that most cosmologists today, do not believe any Singularity of infinite density and spacetime curvature would exist. The only defined singularity is that applied to regions where GR fails us, which is at the quantum/Planck level. This then seems to imply a surface of sorts at or just below that level, consisting of the mass in an unknown form.

Quote

 Why couldnt a black hole with the mass of the universe exist? Would it collapse in on itself?

BH's are not all purpose vacuum cleaners, and will only sweep out an area probably out to around a three Schwarzchild radius, the inner regions of most accretion disks. 1.5 Schwarzchild radius is where something that is travelling at "c" would be able to orbit and is known as the Photon sphere. Some BH's are relatively dormant, like our own SMBH in Sgr A . Others are far more violent such as             3C 273. 

 

Edited February 16, 2019 by beecee

[CJWilli1]

9 hours ago, Strange said:

The radiation has a black body spectrum and the temperature is inversely proportional to the radius of the event horizon. This has nothing to do with the presence of a singularity; it is purely related to the curvature at the event horizon. Whatever happens to the particle that falls into the black hole can have no effect on the particle outside. (And this description in terms of virtual particle pairs is just an analogy that only approximately matches the mathematics.)

Particles outside the even horizon cannot be affected by anything inside the event horizon (that is why it is called an event horizon).

I partially agree now that I think about it. A virtual particle that becomes a real particle outside the event horizon shouldn’t accelerate away from a black hole, but regardless it would experience velocity away from of the event horizon. Otherwise it would fall into the black hole as well. So when the pair of virtual particles pops into existence, would the initial velocities of both of the particles outside the event horizon be equal and opposite? 

 

10 hours ago, Strange said:

If there is something outside" then that implies a boundary: otherwise, what separates "inside" from "outside"?

And why would there be atoms approaching absolute zero? Why wouldn't atoms and radiation from the (relatively) warmer "inside" pass through the boundary and warm them up?

Well I don’t see a definite boundary but a gradient. Either a gradient from hot to cold or a gradient from high gravity to low gravity. Like there is no boundary between a wave and the surrounding ocean. 

Since the universe is expanding, matter is getting colder. Every atom will eventually rip apart and approach absolute zero. If what surrounds us is a cold dead parent universe, then it too is expanding. So as our universe flows into its surroundings the matter of our universe would make little contact or heat exchange due to the expanding nature of our surroundings. 

Even if we were in a well of frozen space time like I stated in my initial speculation, and the surroundings were in super slow motion and gradually speeding up, then as the matter in our universe climbed/fell down this gradient then the surrounding matter would begin to accelerate away from us. The matter in our universe would occupy more of the surrounding space while the matter that previously occupied that space would accelerate away from us. From our perspective it would appear that space was being created. 

If matter cannot be created or destroyed, then why should we believe that space-time can be created or destroyed?

what evidence is there that space is created at the moment of the Big Bang as opposed to my scenario? I’m sure that evidence exists can someone please explain it to me?

11 hours ago, Strange said:

There is probably no such thing as a singularity, but we probably need a theory of quantum gravity to say more. As the (notional) singularity is zero size, the event horizon doesn't reach it until it has zero mass.

The radiation has a black body spectrum and the temperature is inversely proportional to the radius of the event horizon. This has nothing to do with the presence of a singularity; it is purely related to the curvature at the event horizon. Whatever happens to the particle that falls into the black hole can have no effect on the particle outside. (And this description in terms of virtual particle pairs is just an analogy that only approximately matches the mathematics.)

Particles outside the even horizon cannot be affected by anything inside the event horizon (that is why it is called an event horizon).

 

I partially agree now that I think about it. A virtual particle that becomes a real particle outside the event horizon shouldn’t accelerate away from a black hole, but regardless it would experience velocity away from of the event horizon. Otherwise it would fall into the black hole as well. So when the pair of virtual particles pops into existence, would the initial velocities of both of the particles outside the event horizon be equal and opposite?

[CJWilli1]

A virtual particle (that becomes a real particle) has a velocity away from the event horizon. As the universe expands, distant galaxies appear to accelerate away from us. All matter will accelerate away from each another. So the virtual/real particle must accelerate away from the event horizon and the singularity. Since the rate of expansion increases as time moves on, the radiating particles accelerate. So even though the the radiating particles are not directly under the influence of the singularity, it is still possible that they accelerate away from the singularity just as the the counter particle accelerates towards it? 

[beecee]

56 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

A virtual particle (that becomes a real particle) has a velocity away from the event horizon.

So the virtual/real particle must accelerate away from the event horizon and the singularity. Since the rate of expansion increases as time moves on, the radiating particles accelerate. So even though the the radiating particles are not directly under the influence of the singularity, it is still possible that they accelerate away from the singularity just as the the counter particle accelerates towards it? 

As I previously mentioned, Hawking Radiation has yet to be validated, but there is no reason why it cannot be so. It is very likely.

You also make some doubtful assumptions such as "So the virtual/real particle must accelerate away from the event horizon and the singularity." When virtual particles pop into existence just this side of the EH, both may fall in, both may escape, or one may fall in and the other escape. If the third scenario eventuates then the virtual particles become real, the one escaping is seen as X-Ray's and the one falling in, becomes negative and subtracts from the BH's overall mass. 

Quote

As the universe expands, distant galaxies appear to accelerate away from us. All matter will accelerate away from each another

 

The universe only expands over large scales...local groups of galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and galactic walls are decoupled from the expansion by gravity. 

Quote

If matter cannot be created or destroyed, then why should we believe that space-time can be created or destroyed?

what evidence is there that space is created at the moment of the Big Bang as opposed to my scenario? I’m sure that evidence exists can someone please explain it to me?

OK, we are now getting complicated. The law of conservation of energy is probably more correctly applied as the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant....but of course as per E=Mc2, it can be changed from one form to another. 

The evidence that space is created at the BB, or evolved at the BB, is I would imagine the observational data of the expansion and mentally reversing that. I also believe that the universal maximum speed limit only applies to mass/energy....not spacetime. In my opinion, the biggest thing going for the BB is how it fits beautifully with GR.

Finally and with all due respect, you mention "as opposed to your scenario". You and I do not have access to Hubble, the Planck Satellite,  Chandra, Compton, WMAP, etc. While there are many aspects of the BB cosmologists are ignorant of, such as how, the why, the questions on the nature of nothing and before, the ideas that you have put forward, and others, have in all liklelyhood been thought about, researched and pidgeon holed before. String theory and its many derivatives are aesthetically and mathematically beautiful they often say, we simply do not have the technological know how to observe at such scales. 

[Strange]

4 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

what evidence is there that space is created at the moment of the Big Bang as opposed to my scenario?

There is no evidence for space being created.

4 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

I partially agree now that I think about it. A virtual particle that becomes a real particle outside the event horizon shouldn’t accelerate away from a black hole, but regardless it would experience velocity away from of the event horizon. Otherwise it would fall into the black hole as well. So when the pair of virtual particles pops into existence, would the initial velocities of both of the particles outside the event horizon be equal and opposite?

It is an analogy. You can't ry and extract too much information from it.

4 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

Well I don’t see a definite boundary but a gradient. Either a gradient from hot to cold or a gradient from high gravity to low gravity. Like there is no boundary between a wave and the surrounding ocean. 

Since the universe is expanding, matter is getting colder. Every atom will eventually rip apart and approach absolute zero. If what surrounds us is a cold dead parent universe, then it too is expanding. So as our universe flows into its surroundings the matter of our universe would make little contact or heat exchange due to the expanding nature of our surroundings. 

Do you have any evidence for this, or is it just guesswork?

 

2 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

A virtual particle (that becomes a real particle) has a velocity away from the event horizon. As the universe expands, distant galaxies appear to accelerate away from us. All matter will accelerate away from each another.

Planets, stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies are not accelerating away from each other. 

2 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

So the virtual/real particle must accelerate away from the event horizon and the singularity.

If they are photons, they will not accelerate.

Any other particle will be slowed by the gravity of the black hole.

2 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

Since the rate of expansion increases as time moves on, the radiating particles accelerate. 

They are not affected by expansion. Because gravity.

2 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

 So even though the the radiating particles are not directly under the influence of the singularity, it is still possible that they accelerate away from the singularity just as the the counter particle accelerates towards it? 

No. It would require a force to accelerate them The only force is the gravity of the black hole slowing them down.

 

[CJWilli1]

34 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

You also make some doubtful assumptions such as "So the virtual/real particle must accelerate away from the event horizon and the singularity." When virtual particles pop into existence just this side of the EH, both may fall in, both may escape, or one may fall in and the other escape. If the third scenario eventuates then the virtual particles become real, the one escaping is seen as X-Ray's and the one falling in, becomes negative and subtracts from the BH's overall mass. 

The universe only expands over large scales...local groups of galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and galactic walls are decoupled from the expansion by gravity. 

 

So even as the expansion of the universe accelerates, the gas and stars in our galaxy will not gradually increase in distance relative to the center of the galaxy? You would think that as the expansion accelerates all matter would inevitably expand. Right now the expansion is only apparent on large scales but if it continues to accelerate couldn’t that expansion effect matter on smaller scales? If it takes a supermassive black hole a googol years to radiate its energy through Hawking radiation, and the expansion is occurring at that point in time is occurring at an astronomically faster rate, then couldn’t the radiating particles accelerate outwards similarly to that of the distant galaxies that we observe today? 

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

So even as the expansion of the universe accelerates, the gas and stars in our galaxy will not gradually increase in distance relative to the center of the galaxy? You would think that as the expansion accelerates all matter would inevitably expand.

Stars and galaxies are held together by gravity.

Expansion is what happens to a uniform distribution of matter in the absence of any force to prevent it.

11 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

Right now the expansion is only apparent on large scales but if it continues to accelerate couldn’t that expansion effect matter on smaller scales?

It looks like you are desperately searching for straws to hold on to. Even if accelerating expansion is eventually able to pull galaxies apart (the "big rip") that is irrelevant to the universe we see now.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, CJWilli1 said:

So even as the expansion of the universe accelerates, the gas and stars in our galaxy will not gradually increase in distance relative to the center of the galaxy? 

There is no center of the universe, as the BB occurred in all of spacetime, as all of spacetime was confined to the size of an atomic nucleus. The BB occurred in all of spacetime and is still happening. The only center to speak  of is the center of one's observable universe, a personal center if you will, which any intelligent being in any part of the universe would also deduce.

Quote

You would think that as the expansion accelerates all matter would inevitably expand. Right now the expansion is only apparent on large scales but if it continues to accelerate couldn’t that expansion effect matter on smaller scales?

This sounds like the Big Rip scenario and is one possible scenario....After the decay of BH's, it has been speculated that perhaps even proton decay may take place...again speculative though, and so far the only evidence is that expansion is taking place and accelerating over large scales, and gravity still rules over smaller scales such as groups, clusters and walls, at this time. 

Quote

If it takes a supermassive black hole a googol years to radiate its energy through Hawking radiation, and the expansion is occurring at that point in time is occurring at an astronomically faster rate, then couldn’t the radiating particles accelerate outwards similarly to that of the distant galaxies that we observe today? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe

 

 

[CJWilli1]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Stars and galaxies are held together by gravity.

Expansion is what happens to a uniform distribution of matter in the absence of any force to prevent it.

It looks like you are desperately searching for straws to hold on to. Even if accelerating expansion is eventually able to pull galaxies apart (the "big rip") that is irrelevant to the universe we see now.

I personally believe in the big rip scenario. It may be irrelevant in the universe today, but in the far future when the black holes we know of radiate away it may be very relevant. By that time I’m sure the universe will be unrecognizable compared how behaves now. You made an excellent point earlier that light cannot accelerate.

If you think my previous ideas are far fetched then get a load of this...

As I stated earlier I believe that the universe behaves like a gradient of gravity. At the start of the Big Bang the gravity is very high due to the large concentration of mass. As the universe expands the concentration of mass spreads out, and gravity, or the warping of space time, decreases. 

As the gravity or warping of space time decreases the passage time would increase. The less gravity you experience the faster the flow of time. In my gradient scenario time would accelerate. When we say something accelerates we assume that time is constant. But according to my theory time itself would have to be accelerating. What if that rate of expansion was constant and time itself is accelerating?  Wouldn’t it be impossible for us to tell the difference?

Thanks for bearing with me. I know I have no evidence but unfortunately I don’t have a black hole or giant telescope handy to try and find it. 

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

The less gravity you experience the faster the flow of time.

Time dilation depends on the gravitational potential, not simply on the strength of gravity. Since the former varies as 1/r and the latter as 1/r^2, you can have a situation where weaker gravity has a larger time dilation than another body that has stronger gravity.

[koti]

55 minutes ago, swansont said:

Time dilation depends on the gravitational potential, not simply on the strength of gravity. Since the former varies as 1/r and the latter as 1/r^2, you can have a situation where weaker gravity has a larger time dilation than another body that has stronger gravity.

It is also worth mentioning for @CJWilli1 that the metric tensor is the mathematical object that explains the structure of spacetime under General Relativity:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor_(general_relativity)

 

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

I personally believe in the big rip scenario.

Beliefs have nothing to do with science.

3 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

 It may be irrelevant in the universe today , but in the far future when the black holes we know of radiate away it may be very relevant. By that time I’m sure the universe will be unrecognizable compared how behaves now. You made an excellent point earlier that light cannot accelerate.

I said it is irrelevant to your "theory".

1 hour ago, CJWilli1 said:

As I stated earlier I believe that the universe behaves like a gradient of gravity.

We have testable models of the universe, therefore we have evidence supporting those models. Your beliefs are irrelevant compared to that.

1 hour ago, CJWilli1 said:

But according to my theory time itself would have to be accelerating. What if that rate of expansion was constant and time itself is accelerating?  Wouldn’t it be impossible for us to tell the difference?

Show us, in mathematical detail, the predictions of your model and how it compares with what we observe. That is the only way to know if your idea is better than the existing theories.

1 hour ago, CJWilli1 said:

I know I have no evidence but unfortunately I don’t have a black hole or giant telescope handy to try and find it. 

Neither did the people who originally came up with the Big Bang model. But they used theory and compared it with available data.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

As I stated earlier I believe that the universe behaves like a gradient of gravity. 

This is too vague. What specific behavior is the gradient of what?

[CJWilli1]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

This is too vague. What specific behavior is the gradient of what?

The flow from highly concentrated mass to less concentrated mass. The flow from hot to cold. The flow from extremely warped space to less warped space. The flow of time from slow to fast. That’s the best way I could describe the “gradient” at the moment.

If we took our existing models of the universe, and changed them so that the expansion of space is constant and that the rate of time is increasing, would the outcome be different? I’m no mathmitican, I would have to find a partner to help me prove my theory. Can’t one of you guys use our current mathematical models to prove me wrong? I’ll try to take a crack at the math when I find a partner but I obviously don’t have any models ready.