New/Correct Black Hole Theory? - Spacetime Special Relativity

[Banshii]

Because gravity, space/time, special relativity, (and effectively light(speed)), and mass are all related, I've been thinking...

It's said in an example that (simply put), a rocket ship from earth (containing people) is sent out at almost the speed of light to 4 earth-lightyears away, and then comes back. (in this example, acceleration and deacceleration is instantaneous)

4 years go by on earth, but for the people on the rocket ship, it's only a few weeks (or something like that). It was said that it's because the clocks of the space ship people slow down (in the view of the people of earth), and/or because the distance the rocket people are traveling shrinks at high speeds.... (same thing). Whatever, moving on.

Also, the faster something goes, the more mass it has. So something that goes the speed of light would have an infinite mass. And if something is traveling near the speed of light, it would therefore have a freakin huge mass, and we all know that the more mass something has, the more gravity it produces. Maybe produces isn't the right word, but you know what I mean.

So this led me to some thinking about black holes....

If light cannot escape a black hole, then neither can time. If mass is going into a black hole, and light cannot even escape it, there's gonna be a whole lot of gravity, mass(as in "stuff"), space, time... everything.

So I'm thinking that then theoretically, a black hole could contain an entire universe of it's own because it has it's own time/stuff/gravity/everything, that cannot escape. If a black hole is collecting time, then I think it's very likely. I don't think I believe there's a singularity in a black hole anymore, I think it's a gateway to another (new) universe that's been created by the black hole.

Think about it, with infinite gravity, time, space, mass, light and all that... it's gotta be a whole universe, or atleast one in the making. As in some illustrations, black holes make what is visualized as an infinitely long downward spiral in spacetime (because of its gravity). Kind of like if you put something infinitely heavy on a net that's been spread out. It will go down forever (given that the net doesn't break). So that means there's potentially infinite space, time, gravity, mass, light and everything needed for a universe.

I heard theories about black holes containing a universe, but brushed it off because it didn't make sense. But now through thinking about other things, I think believe it's possible.

Am I on to something (even if this is already known) or am I just completely de-railed?

[Commander]

Because gravity, space/time, special relativity, (and effectively light(speed)), and mass are all related, I've been thinking...

 

It's said in an example that (simply put), a rocket ship from earth (containing people) is sent out at almost the speed of light to 4 earth-lightyears away, and then comes back. (in this example, acceleration and deacceleration is instantaneous)

 

4 years go by on earth, but for the people on the rocket ship, it's only a few weeks (or something like that). It was said that it's because the clocks of the space ship people slow down (in the view of the people of earth), and/or because the distance the rocket people are traveling shrinks at high speeds.... (same thing). Whatever, moving on.

 

Also, the faster something goes, the more mass it has. So something that goes the speed of light would have an infinite mass. And if something is traveling near the speed of light, it would therefore have a freakin huge mass, and we all know that the more mass something has, the more gravity it produces. Maybe produces isn't the right word, but you know what I mean.

 

So this led me to some thinking about black holes....

 

If light cannot escape a black hole, then neither can time. If mass is going into a black hole, and light cannot even escape it, there's gonna be a whole lot of gravity, mass(as in "stuff"), space, time... everything.

 

So I'm thinking that then theoretically, a black hole could contain an entire universe of it's own because it has it's own time/stuff/gravity/everything, that cannot escape. If a black hole is collecting time, then I think it's very likely. I don't think I believe there's a singularity in a black hole anymore, I think it's a gateway to another (new) universe that's been created by the black hole.

 

Think about it, with infinite gravity, time, space, mass, light and all that... it's gotta be a whole universe, or atleast one in the making. As in some illustrations, black holes make what is visualized as an infinitely long downward spiral in spacetime (because of its gravity). Kind of like if you put something infinitely heavy on a net that's been spread out. It will go down forever (given that the net doesn't break). So that means there's potentially infinite space, time, gravity, mass, light and everything needed for a universe.

 

I heard theories about black holes containing a universe, but brushed it off because it didn't make sense. But now through thinking about other things, I think believe it's possible.

 

Am I on to something (even if this is already known) or am I just completely de-railed?

 

 

If light cannot escape a black hole, then ........

 

Einstein argues,

… the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous in as much as the view here to be developed will not require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.

................

It shows that Einstein did believe in Empty Space which he has quoted, and also thought that Light is not affected by Gravity !

BLACK HOLE ?

Therefore, lot has happened since Einstein too !!

Edited January 3, 2015 by Commander

[Banshii]

I don't understand how or what that answers. Perhaps break it up a little bit, into a more simple explanation. Or is that just a fact besides the point?

[ajb]

Also, the faster something goes, the more mass it has.

As measured in what frame?

 

The (rest) mass stays the same, you are talking about the relativistic mass, which is not a great concept.

 

If light cannot escape a black hole, then neither can time.

I don't follow this. Are you talking about gravitational time dilation?

Edited January 3, 2015 by ajb

[Strange]

4 years go by on earth, but for the people on the rocket ship, it's only a few weeks (or something like that).

 

I love the detailed analysis you have put into this!

 

If light cannot escape a black hole, then neither can time.

 

Time doesn't need to "escape", so I'm not sure what this means.

 

If mass is going into a black hole, and light cannot even escape it, there's gonna be a whole lot of gravity, mass(as in "stuff"), space, time... everything.

 

Well, black holes certainly have a lot of mass and therefore gravity.

 

I don't think I believe there's a singularity in a black hole anymore, I think it's a gateway to another (new) universe that's been created by the black hole.

 

The theory that describes black holes predicts a singularity. However, most people suspect that this is because it doesn't take quantum effects into account. So, while there may not be a singularity, "belief" doesn't really come into it. We need a theory that tells us what happens.

 

The singularity in a rotating black hole could be a "gateway" to another universe: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/K/Kerr_black_hole.html

 

But I assume that if the singularity doesn't exist, then neither does the gateway.

 

I heard theories about black holes containing a universe, but brushed it off because it didn't make sense. But now through thinking about other things, I think believe it's possible.

I haven't heard of a theory that suggests there is a universe inside a black hole (apart from some poor headlines). There are a few people who suggest that black holes could create new "big bangs", and hence new universes:

http://www.universetoday.com/104863/goodbye-big-bang-hello-hyper-black-hole-a-new-theory-on-universes-creation/

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419827/why-our-universe-must-have-been-born-inside-a-black-hole/

[nullus]

in a physics we can have a hole in a wall..... ( damn i hate this name.. ) nobody knows maybe black holes even can't produce a photon.. if singularity is already reached in a center of each black hole ( following big bang theory ) I think it is already supposed to give some effect.. no strange I do not have any evidence of this. this is just my prediction.

[Mordred]

Poplowskii had at one time a universe inside a BH.

[Banshii]

From what I understand, is that gravity can only directly affect things with mass and space itself.
Light has no mass, so gravity cannot directly effect light. However, gravity does indeed effect space. It bends space. Therefore it bends spacetime. And well, light follows the curvature of space. This has been proven through experiments.
So to me, that means because the gravity of a black hole is so strong, light follows the curvature of space into the black hole, and it can't escape. Otherwise we'd see it. So light follows the curvature of space, into a black hole, and keeps going forever.

That said, if there was a singularity in a black hole, that means to me that the curvature of space would come to a point or singularity (of mass), for example like the mass core in the center of jupiter. If that was the case, light would be able to escape because there would be an end to the space in a black hole. But the fact of the matter is that light does not escape, which means space must be going on forever as we know it within a black hole. Think about it, light follows the curvature of space that is affected by gravity. If that space came to a point or end, light would follow the curvature of space back out of the black hole. But because this doesn't happen, we can easily assume that space in a black hole does not curve back out or end. This means there must be an infinite amount of space in a black hole.

And since space and time are directly related, known now as spacetime, that means there's got to be a whole universe in a black hole.

For example, OUR "bing bang", I believe, was the result of the formation of a black hole in another universe. And as a result, our known universe is basically the inside of a black hole in another universe. And because this black hole in another universe is probably being constantly fed, our universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate.

Simply put, black holes are THE gateways to different universes.

A universe has a black hole that leads to our universe, and our universe has black holes that lead to other universes. It's just an invinite amount of universes leading to an infinite amount of universes.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Banshii

[ajb]

From what I understand, is that gravity can only directly affect things with mass and space itself.

Light has no mass, so gravity cannot directly effect light.

Gravity couples to energy-momentum. As photons have energy they can act as sources of gravity.

 

However, gravity does indeed effect space. It bends space. Therefore it bends spacetime. And well, light follows the curvature of space. This has been proven through experiments.

The same is true of all particles that are only under the influence of gravity. They follow what we call geodesics which are the analogue of a straight line in the case of a curved background.

 

 

So to me, that means because the gravity of a black hole is so strong, light follows the curvature of space into the black hole, and it can't escape. Otherwise we'd see it. So light follows the curvature of space, into a black hole, and keeps going forever.

I think what you have said here is okay, just remember we can describe this properly.

 

That said, if there was a singularity in a black hole, that means to me that the curvature of space would come to a point or singularity (of mass), for example like the mass core in the center of jupiter.

A singularity (in this context) is a point or region of space-time where the curvature becomes infinite.

 

If that was the case, light would be able to escape because there would be an end to the space in a black hole.

I do not follow this.

 

This means there must be an infinite amount of space in a black hole.

How are you defining this?

 

I know that the volume of a (Schwarzschild) black hole is not well defined. You will get different answers depending on the coordinate systems you use.

 

The surface area for distant inertial observers is however invariant.

 

 

Simply put, black holes are THE gateways to different universes.

This is reminiscent of an Einstein–Rosen bridge.

[Strange]

From what I understand, is that gravity can only directly affect things with mass and space itself.

Light has no mass, so gravity cannot directly effect light. However, gravity does indeed effect space. It bends space. Therefore it bends spacetime. And well, light follows the curvature of space.

 

Actually, Newton showed that light would be affected by gravity. (His theory predicts a different result than GR, which is why this was one of the first tests of GR.)

[ajb]

Actually, Newton showed that light would be affected by gravity. (His theory predicts a different result than GR, which is why this was one of the first tests of GR.)

And the idea of a black hole is also older then general relativity. In 1783 Michell wrote to Cavendish explaining his idea of a dark star. That is some body for which the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. By some coincidence, the radius of a dark star is the same as the corresponding Schwarzschild black hole.

[Robittybob1]

And the idea of a black hole is also older then general relativity. In 1783 Michell wrote to Cavendish explaining his idea of a dark star. That is some body for which the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. By some coincidence, the radius of a dark star is the same as the corresponding Schwarzschild black hole.

If we think of the Earth with its man made satellites even though they have velocity they don't have escape velocity and they definitely leave the surface of the Earth, so could when they calculate that light can't escape a black hole, that still could mean that light can go some distance from the black hole before it is deflected (bent) back down again?

[Strange]

If we think of the Earth with its man made satellites even though they have velocity they don't have escape velocity and they definitely leave the surface of the Earth, so could when they calculate that light can't escape a black hole, that still could mean that light can go some distance from the black hole before it is deflected (bent) back down again?

 

That is why it is wrong to think that it is the escape velocity that prevents light escaping.

[Robittybob1]

 

That is why it is wrong to think that it is the escape velocity that prevents light escaping.

So do you agree light could possibly radiate from within the Schwarzschild radius but not to infinity, this light being so diffuse and scattered that it doesn't form an image?

If "it is wrong to think that it is the escape velocity that prevents light escaping", what is right way to think of it?

Edited January 9, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

So do you agree light could possibly radiate from within the Schwarzschild radius

 

Absolutely not.

 

 

If "it is wrong to think that it is the escape velocity that prevents light escaping", what is right way to think of it?

 

Space-time curvature. There are no paths that lead from the inside of a black hole to the outside. Whatever direction you move, you get closer to the centre of the black hole. (In fact, space-time is so curved that the centre of the black hole is no longer ahead of you, it is in your future.)

[Robittybob1]

 

Absolutely not.

 

 

Space-time curvature. There are no paths that lead from the inside of a black hole to the outside. Whatever direction you move, you get closer to the centre of the black hole. (In fact, space-time is so curved that the centre of the black hole is no longer ahead of you, it is in your future.)

How did you convince yourself of that? Can light leave at a tangent to the Schwarzschild Radius (SR)? When calculated the bending of light from the Sun's SR it wasn't a full circle.

[Eise]

Actually, Newton showed that light would be affected by gravity. (His theory predicts a different result than GR, which is why this was one of the first tests of GR.)

 

Did he? How did he show this? Do you have references/sources?

[swansont]

How did you convince yourself of that? Can light leave at a tangent to the Schwarzschild Radius (SR)? When calculated the bending of light from the Sun's SR it wasn't a full circle.

 

No, it can't. Light would travel in a circle at the Schwarzschild radius, at r_s. The sun's SR would be a circle around 3 km in radius. What calculation are you referring to?

[Strange]

 

Did he? How did he show this? Do you have references/sources?

 

Thanks for asking. It seems to be a misconception on my part (and others, I think) that Newton himself calculated this.

 

 

The pioneer of a mathematical description of gravity, Sir Isaac Newton, apparently wrote nothing about the effect of mass on the path of light rays, other than to note at the end of his treatise, "Opticks," published in 1704, that light particles should be affected by gravity in the same way as is ordinary matter. The first calculation of the deflection of light by mass was published by the German astronomer Johann Georg von Soldner in 1801.

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/light_deflection

 

But I believe the reason Newton and Soldner reasoned that this was the case is because the acceleration of a body caused by gravitational force only depends on the mass of the attracting body, not the falling body (see also, Day Trip to Pisa, Galileo et al.) Taking the limit as mass approaches zero tells you that light should be affected equally.

 

No, it can't. Light would travel in a circle at the Schwarzschild radius, at r_s. The sun's SR would be a circle around 3 km in radius. What calculation are you referring to?

 

At the Schwarzschild radius, the photon will fall into the black hole. The smallest stable orbit is at 1.5 x r_s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere

Edited January 9, 2015 by Strange

[MigL]

By definition, the event horizon forms at the radius where the orbital speed becomes greater than c. This is of course for a simple non-rotating ( ie non-existent ), non-charged black hole.

If the universal speed limit was 15000 mi/hr, there would be an event horizon about the earth, RobbityBob, and no stable orbits below a certain height, just like a black hole.

 

There are of course, other ways to describe what happens at the event horizon, such as space-time curvature and light cone tipping that Strange was alluding to.

[swansont]

 

At the Schwarzschild radius, the photon will fall into the black hole. The smallest stable orbit is at 1.5 x r_s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere

 

Thanks.

[Robittybob1]

 

No, it can't. Light would travel in a circle at the Schwarzschild radius, at r_s. The sun's SR would be a circle around 3 km in radius. What calculation are you referring to?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87209-is-this-for-real/page-5#entry846509

I probably used the wrong formula but I had found the right answers for the light deflection and then I compressed the Sun making the radius smaller and the deflection got greater but it never got full circle even at the Schwarzschild Radius for the Sun.

Please have a look at what I did. The formulas are written in the style they go into Excel.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Robittybob1]

 

Thanks for asking. It seems to be a misconception on my part (and others, I think) that Newton himself calculated this.

 

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/light_deflection

 

But I believe the reason Newton and Soldner reasoned that this was the case is because the acceleration of a body caused by gravitational force only depends on the mass of the attracting body, not the falling body (see also, Day Trip to Pisa, Galileo et al.) Taking the limit as mass approaches zero tells you that light should be affected equally.

 

At the Schwarzschild radius, the photon will fall into the black hole. The smallest stable orbit is at 1.5 x r_s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere

Will that only happen with a naturally formed BH? Like if they somehow formed a miniscule BH in the LHC will it have enough mass to make light circle it? Or does this only happen when a star forms with at least 3 times the mass of the Sun? Then might had full circulation in the formula Einstein's bending of light calculation.

2GM/(c^2*R) yields a value in radians, so if M was 3 times the mass of the Sun and R would be possibly the Schwarzschild Radius (vary that and see what happens to the angle).

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87209-is-this-for-real/page-5#entry846371and http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87209-is-this-for-real/page-5#entry846509

[Strange]

Will that only happen with a naturally formed BH? Like if they somehow formed a miniscule BH in the LHC will it have enough mass to make light circle it?

 

It applies to all black holes.

[Robittybob1]

 

It applies to all black holes.

OK I have set up the spreadsheet again and used very accurate values, and see that the equation for light deflection when the mass of the star (M) is contained within its Schwarzschild Radius (SR) the Newtonian formula would yield a value of 1 ie

2*M*G/(c^2*SR)=1 now at larger values of the stars radius ® in (non BH situations) that would produce a value of the angle of deflection in Radians =2*M*G/(c^2*r)=1

 

So does that 1 still represent Radians or 1 steradian of deflection? [they talk of solid angle which is measured in steradians, which I'd never heard of before today. But you can't convert steradians to arcseconds but only square arcseconds and no one is mentioning them ] In using Einsteins formulas the factor was 4 rather than 2 so that would result in an answer of 2 for the BH situation so that brings it up to 2 radians??? Does it? still not a full circle!

There must be another factor somewhere?

Edited January 10, 2015 by Robittybob1