Where to black holes end up?

[Moontanman]

I know this is far out there but is the concept of all black holes ending up at the big bang make sense? this just popped in my head bit black holes end up in a singularity. could this singularity be the the big bang? black holes could could result in a hole in time and space and it makes sense that they could could connect with the singularity of the big bang. have any any scientific papers suggested this possibility? 

[Bufofrog]

11 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I know this is far out there but is the concept of all black holes ending up at the big bang make sense?

The big bang is about the beginning of the universe, are you suggesting that black holes go back in time?

11 hours ago, Moontanman said:

this just popped in my head bit black holes end up in a singularity. could this singularity be the the big bang?

Stellar black holes don't exist until a star collapses so how could they be part of a singularity from the beginning of the universe?

11 hours ago, Moontanman said:

black holes could could result in a hole in time and space and it makes sense that they could could connect with the singularity of the big bang.

That doesn't make sense to me.

11 hours ago, Moontanman said:

have any any scientific papers suggested this possibility?

If there are any I would be flabbergasted.

[MigL]

Both can be considered 'edges' of space-time, however, a Black Hole singularity ( ? ) is in the future, while the Big Bang singularity ( ? ) is in the past.

Edited July 2, 2022 by MigL

[Jasper10]

14 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I know this is far out there but is the concept of all black holes ending up at the big bang make sense? this just popped in my head bit black holes end up in a singularity. could this singularity be the the big bang? black holes could could result in a hole in time and space and it makes sense that they could could connect with the singularity of the big bang. have any any scientific papers suggested this possibility? 

As the universe isn’t expanding uniformly then this is strong evidence that there was never a single Big Bang and there never will be a single Big Crunch.All matter is exiting and entering many many holes.Scientists know this already.They are just beginning to realise that the present scientific model is load of utter nonsense.

Edited July 2, 2022 by Jasper10

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Both can be considered 'edges' of space-time, however, a Black Hole singularity ( ? ) is in the future, while the Big Bang singularity ( ? ) is in the past.

Black holes stop time at the event horizon but it was explained to me that beyond the event horizon matter can travel faster than light and so time travel becomes possible? 

4 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

The big bang is about the beginning of the universe, are you suggesting that black holes go back in time?

Yes, that is exactly what I am speculating. 

4 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Stellar black holes don't exist until a star collapses so how could they be part of a singularity from the beginning of the universe?

Time travel beyond the event horizon  is what I am suggesting, all black holes connect to the big bang. 

4 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

That doesn't make sense to me.

Singularities make no sense

4 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

If there are any I would be flabbergasted.

As would I but the parameters of black holes are weird anyway.

[Markus Hanke]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Black holes stop time at the event horizon

No, this is a common misconception. The thing here is that the region close to the event horizon does not share any notion of simultaneity with a distant stationary observer (‘Schwarzschild observer’). As a result of this, a distant and stationary clock would measure an infinite amount of time for anything to fall to the horizon - meaning the horizon is never reached as measured in that distant frame only.

On the other hand, if you consider a clock that actually travels itself to the horizon, you’ll find that it measures a finite and well defined amount of time; there’s nothing special about spacetime at the horizon at all. The clock just falls through and onwards to the singularity. It does not stop and freeze at the horizon.

Time in GR is a purely local phenomenon, so you have to consider clocks that are actually there, and not distant observers.

[geordief]

22 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

No, this is a common misconception. The thing here is that the region close to the event horizon does not share any notion of simultaneity with a distant stationary observer (‘Schwarzschild observer’). As a result of this, a distant and stationary clock would measure an infinite amount of time for anything to fall to the horizon - meaning the horizon is never reached as measured in that distant frame only.

On the other hand, if you consider a clock that actually travels itself to the horizon, you’ll find that it measures a finite and well defined amount of time; there’s nothing special about spacetime at the horizon at all. The clock just falls through and onwards to the singularity. It does not stop and freeze at the horizon.

Time in GR is a purely local phenomenon, so you have to consider clocks that are actually there, and not distant observers.

Is this example(the event horizon of a black hole and a distant observer) any different qualitatively  from a corresponding relationship  btw any two frames of reference in that  they equally do not share any sense of simultaneity .

 

Is the former relationship just an extreme  example of the latter?

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Jasper10 said:

As the universe isn’t expanding uniformly then this is strong evidence that there was never a single Big Bang and there never will be a single Big Crunch.All matter is exiting and entering many many holes.Scientists know this already.They are just beginning to realise that the present scientific model is load of utter nonsense.

!

Moderator Note

Please do not hijack threads. If you have an alternative science view and are willing to defend it, open a thread in speculations. This is not the place to raise objections to mainstream science

 

[Moontanman]

19 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

No, this is a common misconception. The thing here is that the region close to the event horizon does not share any notion of simultaneity with a distant stationary observer (‘Schwarzschild observer’). As a result of this, a distant and stationary clock would measure an infinite amount of time for anything to fall to the horizon - meaning the horizon is never reached as measured in that distant frame only.

On the other hand, if you consider a clock that actually travels itself to the horizon, you’ll find that it measures a finite and well defined amount of time; there’s nothing special about spacetime at the horizon at all. The clock just falls through and onwards to the singularity. It does not stop and freeze at the horizon.

Time in GR is a purely local phenomenon, so you have to consider clocks that are actually there, and not distant observers.

I understand that but what happens beyond the event horizon? No one really knows is my take and matter can fall, past the event horizon faster than light? I had forgotten that all things go to the future not the past beyond the event horizon but since i am speculating, maybe instead of our big bang maybe the matter falling into the singularity ends up in our future big bang. I know some theorists think out universe resulted from a black hole in another universe but that answer will probably have to wait for TOE.  

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

I understand that but what happens beyond the event horizon?

The event horizon is a mathematical construct, which indicates a radius ( or radii ) after which certain effects manifest.
Te rules and laws of GR continue to hold until infinities arise, close to the singularity; IOW no faster than light tavel.
Te Shwazschild solution is a special case where infinities aise at the event horizon due to choice of co-ordinates.

You may have misunderstood the fact that inside the event horizon, the only direction available is forward in time ( due to GR's geodesics, or geometry, terminating at the singularity, with no paths out of the EH ).
A Big Bang arising from a 'white' hole connected to a Black Hole in an alternate universe is also a non-starter, as it would have observable differences to our universe, like a discernible center, or a 'rotation'.

[Markus Hanke]

21 hours ago, geordief said:

Is the former relationship just an extreme  example of the latter?

Well, not really. The difference is that these are distant frames in a curved (as opposed to flat) spacetime, so the relationship between them isn’t a Lorentz transform, but something more complicated. They are also not symmetric in the same way a pair of inertial frames in flat spacetime would be.

[Moontanman]

17 hours ago, MigL said:

The event horizon is a mathematical construct, which indicates a radius ( or radii ) after which certain effects manifest.
Te rules and laws of GR continue to hold until infinities arise, close to the singularity; IOW no faster than light tavel.
Te Shwazschild solution is a special case where infinities aise at the event horizon due to choice of co-ordinates.

You may have misunderstood the fact that inside the event horizon, the only direction available is forward in time ( due to GR's geodesics, or geometry, terminating at the singularity, with no paths out of the EH ).
A Big Bang arising from a 'white' hole connected to a Black Hole in an alternate universe is also a non-starter, as it would have observable differences to our universe, like a discernible center, or a 'rotation'.

There are solutions to the black hole that postulate a ring shaped singularity at the center which give a possible portal to another universe. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr–Newman_metric#:~:text=In 1965%2C Ezra "Ted",called the Kerr–Newman metric.

Quote

History[edit]

In Dec 1963 Kerr and Schild found the Kerr–Schild metrics that gave all Einstein spaces that are exact linear perturbations of Minkowski space. In early 1964 Roy Kerr looked for all Einstein–Maxwell spaces with this same property. By Feb 1964 the special case where the Kerr–Schild spaces were charged (this includes the Kerr–Newman solution) was known but the general case where the special directions were not geodesics of the underlying Minkowski space proved very difficult. The problem was given to George Debney to try to solve but was given up by March 1964. About this time Ezra T. Newman found the solution for charged Kerr by guesswork. In 1965, Ezra "Ted" Newman found the axisymmetric solution of Einstein's field equation for a black hole which is both rotating and electrically charged.^[2][3] This formula for the metric tensor {\displaystyle g_{\mu \nu }\!} is called the Kerr–Newman metric. It is a generalisation of the Kerr metric for an uncharged spinning point-mass, which had been discovered by Roy Kerr two years earlier.^[4]

Four related solutions may be summarized by the following table:

	Non-rotating (J = 0)	Rotating (J ≠ 0)
Uncharged (Q = 0)	Schwarzschild	Kerr
Charged (Q ≠ 0)	Reissner–Nordström	Kerr–Newman

where Q represents the body's electric charge and J represents its spin angular momentum.

I know everyone hates videos but this video explains the idea of a rotating black hole in quite interesting ways. 

 

[MigL]

I know the Kerr metric predicts a 'ring' singularity, but as far as 'passages' to other universes, I believe that's due to the possible connections of Penrose diagrams.
Whether those connections represent possible realities is a different story, which I will not speculate on.

[Ken Fabian]

Whatever happens on the other side of the event horizon of a black hole there is still mass and gravity interacting with spacetime and matter in the present. I am no physicist but it does seem that out of the things we cannot yet explain within a unified theory of everything gravity is up near or at the top. I would like to think that leaves room for some of those "magic" possibilities - FTL, reactionless drives, anti-gravity - but I remain very doubtful that will be the case.

[Markus Hanke]

5 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I would like to think that leaves room for some of those "magic" possibilities - FTL, reactionless drives, anti-gravity - but I remain very doubtful that will be the case.

The trouble with these things is that many of them violate more general principles that aren’t specific to just gravity - such as unitarity, causality, locality, various conservation laws etc. At least in the classical realm (spaceships etc) I think it is thus very unlikely that such loopholes exist.

[Ni Mimi.]

Hallo.

Answering your question with another, what if these Black Holes’re Heat Sinks?

[Ken Fabian]

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

At least in the classical realm (spaceships etc) I think it is thus very unlikely that such loopholes exist.

I'd be pleased to be wrong but don't really expect any such loopholes; ignorance allows room for speculation... and makes it more likely I am wrong. A singularity, where the laws of physics break down but that doesn't mean anything could happen; maybe the very opposite - is there anything more inert than what is in a black hole?

[Markus Hanke]

7 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

A singularity, where the laws of physics break down but that doesn't mean anything could happen

True. Also, at least in purely classical gravity, whatever happens beyond the event horizon cannot have any causal effect on the rest of the universe - which, on a high and global level, precludes any possibility of somehow using a black hole to send spaceships someplace else at superluminal speeds, irrespective of the precise mechanism. 

[Ken Fabian]

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

True. Also, at least in purely classical gravity, whatever happens beyond the event horizon cannot have any causal effect on the rest of the universe - which, on a high and global level, precludes any possibility of somehow using a black hole to send spaceships someplace else at superluminal speeds, irrespective of the precise mechanism. 

Another question out of ignorance - How does a black hole's gravity influence matter around it if it's mass cannot have a causal effect? Is gravity's effect not causal?

[mistermack]

25 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Another question out of ignorance - How does a black hole's gravity influence matter around it if it's mass cannot have a causal effect? Is gravity's effect not causal?

I would say, yes of course it is. But I would argue that a black hole's gravity isn't a result of things happening inside the black hole, it's more the result of it's existence. Same as any other body. 

[Endy0816]

18 hours ago, Ni Mimi. said:

Hallo.

Answering your question with another, what if these Black Holes’re Heat Sinks?

In some sense they are(size dependent). Eventually Universe will cool enough though.

Edited July 9, 2022 by Endy0816

[Markus Hanke]

On 7/9/2022 at 8:01 AM, Ken Fabian said:

Another question out of ignorance - How does a black hole's gravity influence matter around it if it's mass cannot have a causal effect? Is gravity's effect not causal?

The answer to this is that a black hole’s mass isn’t localised anywhere, in particular not “at the singularity”, as one might naively assume. Instead, it is a global property of the entire spacetime, so no issues of causality arise.

To be even more precise, the metrics describing black hole spacetimes are actually families of metrics, indexed by up to three parameters. For simple Schwarzschild black holes there is only one parameter, denoted “M”, and it comes from boundary conditions when solving the field equations - it turns out that it physically coincides with the total mass of whatever object initially formed the black hole via gravitational collapse. Thus we interpret it as “the mass of the black hole”, but that’s actually pretty sloppy (and physically meaningless) terminology. 

[geordief]

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

The answer to this is that a black hole’s mass isn’t localised anywhere, in particular not “at the singularity”, as one might naively assume. Instead, it is a global property of the entire spacetime, so no issues of causality arise.

To be even more precise, the metrics describing black hole spacetimes are actually families of metrics, indexed by up to three parameters. For simple Schwarzschild black holes there is only one parameter, denoted “M”, and it comes from boundary conditions when solving the field equations - it turns out that it physically coincides with the total mass of whatever object initially formed the black hole via gravitational collapse. Thus we interpret it as “the mass of the black hole”, but that’s actually pretty sloppy (and physically meaningless) terminology. 

Is this form of words  any good?

"Mass and energy-momentum have been converted into the spacetime curvature of the BH"

 

If that wording is accurate enough  does spacetime curvature also get (re)converted  into mass and energy-momentum in due course?

[MigL]

To paraphrase the Merovingian ( in the Matrix ) ...

"Cause and effect, my dear"

Energy-momentum is the 'cause'; space-time curvature is the resulting 'effect'.

This is true for any gravitating body, not just Black Holes.
The difference is the causal disconnect of the space-time within the event horizon, and outside the event horizon.

[Markus Hanke]

6 hours ago, geordief said:

"Mass and energy-momentum have been converted into the spacetime curvature of the BH"

This isn’t true in general, but in the case of an ordinary Schwarzschild black hole, it is fitting to some degree - the mass-energy of the original object is no longer ‘there’ after the collapse; instead you now have a particular configuration of (empty!) spacetime that we call black hole.

58 minutes ago, MigL said:

Energy-momentum is the 'cause'; space-time curvature is the resulting 'effect'.

Actually, it’s not that simple - it’s much more accurate to say that there is an equivalence relationship between (Einstein, not Riemann!) curvature and energy-momentum. These two things differ only by a proportionality constant that fixes up the units - it’s not like one precedes the other causally. To say there’s a region of spacetime with non-zero Einstein curvature is exactly equivalent to saying that region contains energy-momentum that’s distributed in certain ways, and vice versa. Interestingly, this relationship only constraints the quantities in question, but does not uniquely determine them until you impose some boundary conditions. In GR, it’s really the boundary conditions where a lot of the ‘magic’ happens; people often don’t realise this.